ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
You are here
Home ›ECtHR - T.A. v. Sweden, Application No. 48866/10
Internal contradictions in the Sunni Muslim Applicant’s account, coupled with the time lapse since the relevant acts of persecution, led the majority to conclude that his return to Iraq, despite former employment with US-backed security companies, would not violate Articles 2 or 3.
The Applicant, a Sunni Muslim from Iraq, faced deportation from Sweden back to Iraq, on account of his asylum claim having been rejected in 2010, three years after his arrival. He worked for security companies in Baghdad who co-operated with the US military, and alleged that his house was completely destroyed by Shi’ite militias.He fled Iraq and relies on his rights under Articles 2 and 3 to resist his return.
The Court first declared the general situation in Iraq to be not sufficiently serious to warrant the conclusion that any return to Iraq would violate Article 3 irrespective of personal circumstances.
Turning to the Applicant’s particular situation, the Court accepted that those associated with security companies employed by the international forces in Iraq faced a greater risk of persecution from militias than the general population. However, the Court were sceptical of an internal contradiction in the Applicant’s account and evidence, namely his brother’s documented claim that four people went into T.A.’s house a year after it was allegedly completely destroyed. This problem, coupled with the general lack of evidence for his claims and the near six year time lapse since the relevant acts of persecution, led the Court to reject T.A.’s Article 2 and 3 complaints.
Two judges of the Court dissented from the majority opinion, on account of the Applicant’s former employment placing him in a specific risk category, the escalating violence in Iraq in 2013, the overall plausibility of T.A.’s account, the overly onerous credibility test applied by the Swedish authorities, and the majority according too much weight to the alleged discrepancy in his account.
Related complaints under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 7 were rejected by the court as manifestly ill-founded. Regarding the former, the Applicant had been split up from his family since 2007, and a decision to deport would not change this. For the latter, the Applicant had had ample opportunity to make representations against his removal.
No risk of violation of Articles 2, 3, 8 or Article 1 Protocol 7.
ECtHR - Hakizimana v. Sweden, Application No. 37913/05
UK - HM and others (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG, [2012] UKUT 00409 (IAC)
ECtHR - Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81
ECtHR - Kaboulov v. Ukraine, Application No. 41015/04
ECtHR - Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI
ECtHR - Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], Application No. 46410/99
ECtHR - Collins and Akaziebe v Sweden (Application no. 23944/05)
ECtHR - F.H. v Sweden (Application no. 32621/06)
ECtHR - Hilal v United Kingdom, Application no. 45276/99
ECtHR - Mamatkulov Askarov v Turkey, Applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99
- 31 May 2012 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Iraq;
- Report on Human Rights in Iraq: July – December 2012, published in June 2013, Human Rights Office of the United Nations Mission for Iraq (UNAMI);
- UK Border Agency Iraq Operational Guidance Note of December 2012.