ECtHR - Vedran Andric v. Sweden, Application no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999, decision as to the inadmissibility

Facts:

The applicant, a Bosnian Catholic holding a Croatian passport, defected from the a military unit on grounds of the attacks against Muslims in the 1990s in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The applicant later left the country to Croatia and from there to Sweden where he applied for asylum on account of the risk of return from Croatia to Bosnia-Hercegovina where he could be sentenced to prison for desertion . The Applicant's statements were rejected on grounds that they lacked credibility  and that there was no risk of removal from Croatia to Bosnia-Hercegovina. Whilst his appeal on the asylum decision was later rejected the applicant received a temporary residence permit in 1995 due to the worsening situation in Croatia. A request for extension of the permit was later denied on the basis of updated country of origin information on Croatia. Nonetheless the deportation order was suspended due to the applicant suffering from PTSD.

To the ECtHR the applicant complained that he would be collectively expelled with other Bosnian Croats and the Swedish authorities had failed to properly examine his individual claims. 

Decision & reasoning:

The Court first examines the criteria for a finding of Article 4 Protocol 4 to the Convention, namely that collective expulsions occur where a measure compels aliens as a group to leave a country without a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each alien and without allowing the alien to put forward arguments against the expulsion. Applying this to the facts the Court notes that the Swedish government had issued guidelines for the assessment of asylum applicants holding both Bosnian and Croatian citizenship and that in this particular case the Swedish authorities and Appeals Board had examined the situation for persons with dual nationality in Croatia. In rejecting the applicant’s argumentation on the risks he faced upon return to Croatia the authorities issued individual decisions and suspended his return on the basis of his mental health. On this basis the Court determines that there has been no collective expulsion in this case. The application is thus manifestly ill-founded.

The Court, of its own motion, also examines the claim under Article 3. The applicant is an ethnic Croat and has family living in the country, he also holds Croatian citizenship. Therefore, the Court determines that there would be no risk of ill-treatment if he were returned to Croatia and there is no evidence to suggest that he would be sent onwards to Bosnia-Hercegovina. Lastly, and in regards to the effect that deportation would have on the applicant’s mental health, the Court does not find it necessary to assess whether such a deportation would fall within the scope of Article 3 since the applicant, in his present state of health, will not be deported. The application is thus also manifestly ill-founded from this angle.

Outcome:

Application inadmissible.