H.N. and Others v Sweden - 50043/09 [2012] ECHR 221 (24 January 2012)

H.N. and Others v Sweden - 50043/09 [2012] ECHR 221 (24 January 2012)

The applicants failed to substantiate a real risk of persecution by Burundian authorities or stigmatization in society, and the first applicant's mental health condition did not reach the high threshold required for Article 3 protection. The general situation in Burundi, while concerning, was not sufficient in itself to establish a violation. Medical care was available in Burundi, and the applicants' circumstances did not present very exceptional humanitarian grounds.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 221
Parties
Applicants: H. N. and Others; Respondent: Sweden
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
24 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Deportation, Asylum, Non Refoulement, Mental Health and Deportation, Risk of Persecution, Stigmatization
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Article 3 ECHR Deportation Asylum Non Refoulement Mental Health and Deportation Risk of Persecution +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. N. and Others

Applicants

Sweden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deportation of the applicants to Burundi would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to risk of persecution, stigmatization, or harm arising from the first applicant's mental health.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to substantiate a real risk of persecution by Burundian authorities or stigmatization in society, and the first applicant's mental health condition did not reach the high threshold required for Article 3 protection. The general situation in Burundi, while concerning, was not sufficient in itself to establish a violation. Medical care was available in Burundi, and the applicants' circumstances did not present very exceptional humanitarian grounds.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

Orders

  • Application rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
  • Interim measure under Rule 39 lifted.