ECtHR Communicated cases against Russia and Switzerland

Wednesday, January 9, 2019

The European Court of Human Rights has recently communicated three asylum-related cases:

  • N.M. against Russia and 3 other applications (Application no: 29343/18): The applicants were charged with religious and politically motivated crimes, their pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia, and international search warrants were issued by the authorities of the countries requesting their extradition. They were detained in Russia pending their extradition. The Russian authorities took final decisions to extradite them but interim measures under Rule 39 were granted. The applicants complain that they would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR if removed and that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 13 ECHR. Some of the applicants also complain of the unlawfulness of their detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) and of deportation in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court, under Article 34.
  • B.F. and D.E. against Switzerland (Application no: 13258/18): The first applicant is an Eritrean national who entered Switzerland in July 2012 and her asylum application was provisionally admitted on the grounds that her removal would be unlawful. She then filed an application to allow her daughter, the second applicant, to join her in Switzerland from Sudan. Nevertheless, the mother did not meet the requirements of a three-year waiting period and financial autonomy in connection with her provisional admission status. The applicant claims that the refusal to grant her daughter the benefit of family reunification in Switzerland constitutes a violation of Article 8, alone and in conjunction with Article 14. With regard to Article 14, she submits that Swiss law treats refugee status holders and provisional admission beneficiaries differently.
  • J.K. against Switzerland (Application no 15500/18): The applicant is a Chinese national of Tibetan ethnicity who entered Switzerland in November 2010. He was recognised as a refugee and was granted provisional admission on the grounds that his removal was unlawful. However, the authorities considered that he could not be granted asylum. On 9 October 2014, the applicant filed an application for family reunification in favour of his wife and two children in India. This request was rejected by the authorities on the grounds that his salary was not sufficient to support a family of four members. The applicant claims that the refusal of the Swiss authorities to grant his wife and children the benefit of family reunification in Switzerland amounts to a violation of Article 8, alone and combined with Article 14.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE. 



Effective remedy (right to)
Family member
Family unity (right to)
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment