ECtHR - A.A. and Others v. Sweden, Application No. 34098/11
| Country of applicant: | Somalia |
| Court name: | Fifth Section; European Court of Human Rights |
| Date of decision: | 24-07-2014 |
| Citation: | A.A. and Others v. Sweden (no. 34098/11) |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Armed conflict
Description
A dispute involving the use of armed force between two or more parties. International Humanitarian law distinguishes between international and non-international armed conflicts.“An armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a state”. |
|
Country of origin information
Description
"Information used by the Member States authorities to analyse the socio-political situation in countries of origin of applicants for international protection (and, where necessary, in countries through which they have transited) in the assessment, carried out on an individual basis, of an application for international protection.” It includes all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, obtained from various sources, including the laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied, regulations of the country of origin, plus general public sources, such as reports from (inter)national organisations, governmental and non-governmental organisations, media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin, embassy reports, etc. This information is also used inter alia for taking decisions on other migration issues, e.g. on return, as well as by researchers. One of the stated aims of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is to progressively bring all activities related to practical cooperation on asylum under its roof, to include the collection of Country of Origin Information and a common approach to its use. |
|
Credibility assessment
Description
Assessment made in adjudicating an application for a visa, or other immigration status, in order to determine whether the information presented by the applicant is consistent and credible. |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
Internal protection
Description
Where in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. |
|
Country of origin
Description
The country (or countries) which are a source of migratory flows and of which a migrant may have citizenship. In refugee context, this means the country (or countries) of nationality or, for stateless persons, of former habitual residence. |
Headnote:
The applicants’ removal from Sweden to Somalia would not expose them to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR.
Facts:
The applicants are four Somali nationals, A.A. and his three children, all allegedly from the Sheikal clan in Southern Somalia. They entered Sweden in 2009 and applied for asylum and residence permits. The applicants’ claim for asylum was rejected by the Swedish Migration Board and the Migration Court on the grounds that there were credibility concerns as to whether the family really came from Hosingo in Southern Somalia and the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The Swedish authorities claimed, on the basis of language analysis tests, that the family had lived in Somaliland for a number of years previously and could be returned there. The applicants complained to the ECtHR that their removal from Sweden to Somalia would expose them to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to the ongoing armed conflict in south and central Somalia.
Decision & reasoning:
The ECtHR noted that the situation in Somaliland has remained broadly unchanged since its assessment in the judgment of K.A.B. v Sweden (no 886/11), and there were no indications that the applicants had any affiliations with the Isaaq clan, a majority clan, in Somaliland.
However, in light of the Swedish government’s submissions, the Court decided there were strong reasons to question the veracity of the applicants’ submission that they had remained in Hosingo previously and had no ties to Somaliland. In these circumstances, the Court held that the applicant can be expected to provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged discrepancies revealed by the language tests and the stamp dates on the applicant’s passport regarding exit and entry to Somalia.
The Court noted that the applicant only challenged the content of the language analysis report before the judicial authorities in Sweden and not before the domestic administrative authorities. The applicants stated that they were trying to find an independent linguistic expert, but no further language analysis was put before the Court, nor did the applicants state why they had given up this intention. The Court also noted among other issues that the first applicant had provided contradictory statements with regard to his travel activity, past events, and general knowledge about the situation in South and Central Somalia. The Court found that the applicant had not provided any reasonable explanation for these discrepancies.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the assessment made by the Swedish authorities, which concluded that the applicants were former residents of Somaliland before they left Somalia, was adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic materials as well as by materials originating from other reliable and objective sources. The Court found that the applicants had failed to substantiate that they would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon return to Somaliland.
Outcome:
No violation of Article 3 ECHR
The Court has decided to maintain the indication made to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until the judgment becomes final or until further order.
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Collins and Akaziebe v Sweden (Application no. 23944/05) |
| ECtHR - Hilal v United Kingdom, Application no. 45276/99 |
| ECtHR - Mamatkulov Askarov v Turkey, Applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99 |
| ECtHR - Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], Application No. 46410/99 |
| ECtHR - N. v. Finland, Application No. 38885/02 |
| ECtHR - Hakizimana v. Sweden, Application No. 37913/05 |
| ECtHR - K.A.B. v. Sweden, Application No. 886/11 |
| ECtHR - T.K.H. v. Sweden, Application No. 1231/11 |
| ECtHR - M.S. v. United Kingdom (dec.), Application 56090/08 |
| ECtHR - Hassan Ahmed ABDI IBRAHIM v. United Kingdom (dec.), Application No 14535/10 |
Other sources:
UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Somalia (“the Eligibility Guidelines”) were published on 17 January 2014 (see http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html)
Country information and guidance report on Somalia by the UK Home Office, 9 April 2014
The Danish Immigration Service and the Norwegian Landinfo Fact Finding Mission report, Update on security and protection issues in Mogadishu and South-Central Somalia, 1-15 November 2013, released on 3 March 2014 (see www.newtodenmark.dk and www.landinfo.no)