issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 227 (2015)
30.06.2015
Removal of asylum seeker – suffering from post-traumatic stress disease
– to Italy under the EU ‘Dublin’ Regulation would not violate the Convention
The case of A.S. v. Switzerland (application no. 39350/13) concerned an asylum seeker’s impending
removal from Switzerland to Italy.
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,
that, if A.S. were removed to Italy, there would be:
no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, and
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
The Court observed in particular that A.S. was not critically ill and found that there was currently no
indication that he would not receive appropriate psychological treatment if removed to Italy. While
the Court had previously raised serious doubts as to the capacities of the reception system for
asylum seekers in Italy, the reception arrangements there could not in itself justify barring all
removals of asylum seekers to Italy.
Principal facts
The applicant, A.S., is a Syrian national of Kurdish origin who was born in 1988 and currently lives in
Geneva (Switzerland).
Having entered Switzerland from Italy, A.S. sought asylum in Switzerland in February 2013. The Swiss
Federal Office of Migration (now the State Secretariat for Migration) rejected his request in May
2013 based on the fact that his fingerprints had already been registered in Greece and Italy before
he had entered Switzerland. Furthermore, the Italian authorities had already accepted a request by
the Swiss authorities under the EU Dublin Regulation that A.S. be taken back to Italy.
A.S. appealed against the decision, arguing in particular that he had been diagnosed with severe
post-traumatic stress disorder, after having been persecuted and tortured in Syria, and was receiving
treatment in Switzerland. Furthermore, his two sisters lived in Switzerland, whose presence gave
him a certain emotional stability. In June 2013, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed his
appeal, holding in particular that under the Dublin Regulation he had to return to Italy.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
A.S. complained that, if returned to Italy, he would face treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition
of inhuman or degrading treatment). In particular he argued that due to systemic deficiencies in the
reception system for asylum seekers in Italy, he would not be provided with proper housing and
adequate medical treatment. He further alleged, in particular, that his removal to Italy would sever
his relationship with his sisters in Switzerland and violate his rights under Article 8 (right to respect
for private and family life).
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.
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.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 June 2013.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), President,
András Sajó (Hungary),
Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro),
Helen Keller (Switzerland),
Paul Lemmens (Belgium),
Egidijus Kūris (Lithuania),
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Denmark),
and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Article 3
The Court referred to its judgment in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland2, in which it had raised
serious doubts as to the capacities of the reception system for asylum seekers in Italy. In particular,
there was a possibility that asylum seekers might be left without accommodation or might be
accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy. At the same time, the Court had found
that the overall situation of reception arrangements in Italy could not in itself justify barring all
removals of asylum seekers to Italy.
The Court noted that A.S. was not, at the present moment, critically ill. It was a matter of some
speculation how quickly his health would deteriorate and to what extent he would be able to obtain
access to medical treatment if removed to Italy. There was currently no indication that he would not
receive appropriate psychological treatment there and no indication that he would not have access
to the anti-depressant of the kind which he was receiving in Switzerland.
Moreover, the case of A.S. did not disclose exceptional circumstances comparable to those in
another case in which the Court had found that the deportation of the applicant, who was in the
final stages of AIDS and had no prospect of medical care or family support in his country of origin,
would violate the Convention. 3
Accordingly, the Court found that A.S.’s removal to Italy would not be in violation of Article 3.
Article 8
There was no indication that A.S. had lived in Switzerland before lodging his asylum request in
February 2013, which was four months before he lodged his application before the Court. During
that short period of time, his presence in Switzerland had been accepted by the authorities only for
the purpose of examining his status as an asylum seeker. It could thus not be argued that the
tolerance by the Swiss authorities of his presence in the country for a long period had enabled him
to establish and develop strong family ties there. The Court had already found in other cases that
relations between parents and adult children or between adult siblings did not constitute family life
for the purpose of Article 8 unless the applicants could demonstrate additional elements of
dependence.
Moreover, bearing in mind that States had a certain room for manoeuvre (“margin of appreciation”
under the Court’s case-law) in immigration matters, the Court found that a fair balance had been
struck between the competing interests at stake, namely A.S.’s personal interests in establishing any
2
3
Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland (no. 29217/12) of 4 November 2014
Chamber judgment D. v. the United Kingdom (no. 30240/96) of 2 May 1997
2
family life in Switzerland on the one hand and, on the other, the public order interests of the Swiss
Government in controlling immigration.
As to A.S.’s complaint that his removal to Italy would prevent him from continuing to benefit from
the support from his sisters in the context of his therapy, it had already been dealt with under Article
3. The Court did not consider that it raised any separate issues under Article 8.
Accordingly, the Court found that A.S.’s removal to Italy would not be in violation of Article 8.
Separate opinion
Judges Sajó, Vučinić and Lemmens expressed a joint concurring opinion, which is annexed to the
judgment.
The judgment is available only in English.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHRpress.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
3