issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 273 (2015)
10.09.2015
Judgments and decisions of 10 September 2015
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing one judgment1 and two decisions2
.
one Chamber judgment is summarised below;
The judgment summarised below is available in English only.
R.H. v. Sweden (application no. 4601/14)
The case concerned the deportation of a Somali asylum-seeker.
The applicant, Ms R.H., is a Somali national who was born in 1988. She applied for asylum in Sweden
in December 2011, claiming that she had just arrived in the country. The Migration Board and
migration courts examined her situation and eventually rejected her asylum application in June 2013
and ordered her deportation to Somalia. Those instances found that the applicant’s statements to
the authorities lacked credibility: notably, she had already filed asylum applications in Italy and the
Netherlands before arriving in Sweden in 2007, staying there illegally until contacting the migration
authorities in 2011; and, initially claiming that she had left Somalia because of the war, had then
changed her story to allege that she had fled Somalia with a secret boyfriend to escape a forced
marriage to an older man and feared ill-treatment by her family on her return, particularly by her
uncles who had already severely beaten her in 2004 for trying to escape. The applicant subsequently
submitted a petition to have the enforcement of her deportation order stopped, claiming that her
uncles had joined al-Shabaab, a jihadist terrorist group based in Somalia, forcing her brother to also
join the group and killing her sister. The Migration Board rejected her petition in September 2013.
The applicant’s deportation was stayed in January 2014 on the basis of an interim measure granted
by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, which indicated to the
Swedish Government that the applicant should not be expelled to Somalia whilst the Court was
considering the case.
Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Ms R.H. alleged that, if removed from Sweden to Somalia, she would
face a real risk of either being killed by her uncles for refusing to agree to a forced marriage before
fleeing Somalia or forced to marry a man against her will again upon her return. She further claimed
that the general situation in Somalia for women was very difficult, in particular for those – such as
herself – who lacked a male network and were therefore all the more vulnerable.
No violation of Article 3 in the event of Ms R.H.’s deportation to Mogadishu in Somalia
Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to deport Ms R.H. – still in force until
judgment becomes final or until further order.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2 Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
