Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65

June 2004

Salkic and Others v. Sweden (dec.) - 7702/04

Decision 29.6.2004 [Section IV]

Article 3

Expulsion

Expulsion to Bosnia-Herzegovina of a family suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder: inadmissible

The applicants are a Bosnian Muslim family which fled to Germany in 1992 due to alleged harassment and discrimination. They were returned to Bosnia-Herz egovina in 1998 and housed by the Refugee Authority in Tuzla. In 2000, they entered Sweden and requested asylum. Their application was rejected as it was considered that they could return to their country without a risk of persecution due to their ethnicit y. From their arrival in Sweden until their expulsion, all the members of the family were in contact with the Swedish health care system and under psychiatric treatment. Several medical certificates indicated that their fragile mental health was linked to traumatic experiences and anxiety about the future. Some doctors stated that the children would be permanently damaged by expulsion. The Migration Authorities, whilst acknowledging the difficult circumstances of the family, did not consider these were grav e enough to constitute a violation of humanitarian standards if they were expelled, and, hence, rejected the seven asylum applications which the family submitted in total. The expulsion was suspended following a request by the Court under Rule 39 of the Ru les of Court but once the Court decided not to prolong the interim measure, in March 2004, the family was expelled. A psychologist who examined the children upon their arrival in Tuzla stated that adequate treatment for them was not available in Bosnia-Her zegovina.

Inadmissible under Articles 2 and 3: Despite the fact that the applicants had been through traumatic experiences, suffered severe stress and required long-term treatment, there existed health care centres which the applicants could rely on in Bo snia-Herzegovina, even if they were not of the same standards as those in Sweden. Given the high threshold set by Article 3, and the fact that the case did not disclose exceptional circumstances, the expulsion was not contrary to this provision: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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