CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 septembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   607 20.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SULTANI v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sultani v. France (application no. 45223/05).   The Court held unanimously:   that there would be no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicant were deported to Afghanistan; that there would be no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the Convention if the applicant were deported. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mohammad Sultani, is an Afghan national who was born in 1985 and lives in Paris.   The applicant said that he fled from Afghanistan to France in December 2002. He is from the Baghlan region of the country and a member of the Tajik ethnic group; his father was a Communist party representative. After the fall of the Communist regime in Afghanistan, the involvement of a Tajik in communist activities was regarded as high treason. The applicant stated that a former warlord who later became a prominent local figure had, among other things, appropriated the family’s property in 1992. The applicant’s house had been the target of a grenade attack the same year, during which he had been wounded.   Mr Sultani lodged an application for asylum on 25 March 2003. The French Agency for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) refused the application in August 2003, taking the view that the circumstances described by the applicant did not justify his refusal to return to Afghanistan, in particular because they concerned a period in the past and the country had since undergone political change. In July 2004 the applicant was directed to leave French territory.   On 14 December 2005, after being arrested in a manner he described as “targeted and based on [his] nationality” and which he claimed was prompted by an attempt at collective expulsion, the applicant was made the subject of a prefectoral removal order, a decision stipulating the country of destination and an administrative detention order. He challenged the prefectoral order and the decision naming Afghanistan as the country of destination before the Paris Administrative Court, without success. On 19 December 2005 he lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The following day, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, the Court indicated to the French Government that it was desirable to refrain from deporting the applicant to Afghanistan. On 5 January 2006 the Court decided to extend the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 until further notice. On 4 July 2006 the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the administrative court’s judgment.   The applicant lodged a second asylum application on 9 January 2006, which was refused by OFPRA the following day. The Agency stated in particular that: “the applicant’s statements, which are brief and sketchy, are not supported by any credible or decisive evidence capable of proving that the alleged facts are true and that his fears are well-founded”.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 December 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant submitted, in particular, that if he were to return to Afghanistan he ran the risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. He complained of the deportation proceedings against him, and in particular of the short time taken by OFPRA to consider his second asylum application. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed that Mr Sultani’s case had been subjected to detailed scrutiny by the French authorities.   It considered that the fact that the second asylum application had been dealt with in a short time did not mean that it had not been examined effectively. It noted that the applicant’s first asylum application had already been thoroughly examined, enabling OFPRA to consider all his arguments. It also pointed out that particularly detailed reasons had been given for the administrative court decision of 4 July 2006.   As to the risks referred to by the applicant, the Court observed that he had succeeded only in demonstrating that violence was widespread in Afghanistan. It pointed out, however, that such a situation did not in itself mean that deportation to that country would entail a violation of Article 3. It noted that Mr Sultani had not provided any evidence concerning his personal situation that was properly substantiated or sufficient for him to be considered as a member of a minority group under particular threat. The Court stressed the fact that the applicant himself was not a former Communist Party leader and had not demonstrated that he would be at personal risk of repression in his country of origin.   Accordingly, it held that there would be no violation of Article 3 if the applicant were to be deported.   Article 4 of Protocol No. 4   The Court reiterated that collective expulsion was to be understood as any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure was taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual in the group.   The Court noted that the French authorities, in their decision to refuse the asylum applications, had taken account of both the overall situation in Afghanistan and the applicant’s statements. It therefore found that Mr Sultani’s case had been examined individually and provided sufficient grounds for his deportation.   In the circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant’s deportation would not amount to a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.