M.Y.H. and Others v. Sweden - 50859/10 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 736 (27 June 2013)

M.Y.H. and Others v. Sweden - 50859/10 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 736 (27 June 2013)

The Court found that while Christians are a vulnerable minority in Iraq, the Kurdistan Region offers a viable and relatively safe internal relocation alternative, with no evidence that the applicants would face a real risk of prohibited treatment there. The applicants' personal circumstances did not indicate a specific risk in the Kurdistan Region, and the general situation in Iraq did not preclude their return.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 736
Parties
Applicants: M. Y. H. and Others; Respondent: Sweden
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Asylum/expulsion / Judgment
Outcome
deportation would not constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Degrading Treatment, Inhuman Treatment, Expulsion, Internal Relocation Alternative
Human Rights Immigration Article 3 ECHR Degrading Treatment Inhuman Treatment Expulsion Internal Relocation Alternative

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Y. H. and Others

Applicants

Sweden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Asylum/expulsion / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deportation of Christian family to Iraq would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while Christians are a vulnerable minority in Iraq, the Kurdistan Region offers a viable and relatively safe internal relocation alternative, with no evidence that the applicants would face a real risk of prohibited treatment there. The applicants' personal circumstances did not indicate a specific risk in the Kurdistan Region, and the general situation in Iraq did not preclude their return.

Court Disposition

deportation would not constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR