Information Note on the Court’s case-law 175

June 2014

F.G. v. Sweden (referral) - 43611/11

Judgment 16.1.2014 [Section V]

Article 3

Expulsion

Proposed expulsion to Iran of alleged political activist who had converted to Christianity after arriving in Europe: case referred to the Grand Chamber

The applicant, an Iranian national, applied for asylum in Sweden on the grounds that he had worked with known opponents of the Iranian regime and had been arrested and held by the authorities on at least three occasions between 2007 and 2009, notably in connection with his web publishing activities. He was forced to flee after discovering that his business p remises, where he kept politically sensitive material, had been searched and documents were missing. After arriving in Sweden, he had converted to Christianity, which he claimed put him at risk of capital punishment for apostasy on a return to Iran. His re quest for asylum was rejected by the Swedish authorities, who made an order for his expulsion.

In a judgment of 16 January 2014, a Chamber of the Court held by four votes to three that the implementation of the expulsion order against the applicant would n ot give rise to a violation of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention. It found that no information had emerged to indicate that the applicant’s political activities and engagement had been anything more than peripheral. He had not been summoned to appear before the Revolutionary Court since November 2009, his family in Iran had not been targeted because of his political activities and he did not claim to have continued his activities since his arrival in Sweden. As regards his conversion to Christianity, he had expressly stated before the domestic authorities that he did not wish to invoke his religious affiliation as a ground for asylum, since he felt this to be a private matter. He had had the opportunity to raise the question of his conversion during the oral hearing before the Migration Court but had chosen not to do so, only changing stance once the order for his expulsion became enforceable. Moreover, he had only converted to Christianity after arriving in Sweden and had kept his faith private. There was not hing to indicate that the Iranian authorities were aware of his conversion. In conclusion, the applicant had failed to substantiate a real and concrete risk of proscribed treatment if he was returned to Iran.

On 2 June 2014 the case was referred to the Gra nd Chamber at the applicant’s request.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes