Pressemitteilung zum Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zur Abschiebung von Flüchtlingsfamilien ins Ersteinreiseland, 28.10.2014 (engl. Originalfassung)
Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment concerning Swiss authorities’ decision to return Afghan family of asylum seekers to Italy
Principal facts
The applicants, Golajan Tarakhel, born in 1971, his wife Maryam Habibi, born in 1981, and their six minor children, born between 1999 and 2012, are Afghan nationals who live in Lausanne (Switzerland).
Mr Tarakhel left Afghanistan for Pakistan, where he met and married Mrs Habibi. The couple subsequently moved to Iran, where they lived for 15 years. They and their children later left Iran for Turkey and from there took a boat to Italy. The couple and their five oldest children landed on the coast of Calabria on 16 July 2011 and were immediately subjected to the EURODAC identification procedure (taking of photographs and fingerprints) after supplying a false identity. The same day they were placed in a reception facility, where they remained until 26 July 2011, when they were transferred to the Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers (“CARA”) in Bari, once their true identity had been established.
On 28 July 2011 the applicants left the CARA in Bari without permission and travelled to Austria, where on 30 July 2011 they were again registered in the EURODAC system. They lodged an application for asylum which was rejected. On 1 August 2011 Austria submitted a request to take charge of the applicants to the Italian authorities, which on 17 August 2011 formally accepted the request.
The applicants later travelled to Switzerland and on 3 November 2011 lodged an asylum application. On 15 November 2011 Mr Tarakhel and his wife were interviewed by the Federal Migration Office (“the FMO”), which requested the Italian authorities to take charge of the applicants. The Italian authorities tacitly accepted the request.
On 24 January 2012 the FMO decided not to examine the applicants’ asylum application on the grounds that, in accordance with the European Union’s Dublin Regulation, by which Switzerland was bound under the terms of an association agreement with the European Union, Italy was the State responsible for examining the application. The FMO therefore issued an order for the applicants’ removal to Italy. On 2 February 2012 the applicants appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal in a judgment of 9 February 2012.
The applicants requested the FMO to have the proceedings reopened and to grant them asylum in Switzerland. The request was forwarded to the Federal Administrative Court, which reclassified it as a “request for revision” of the judgment of 9 February 2012 and rejected it on 21 March 2012 on the ground that the applicants had not submitted any new arguments.
The applicants applied to the European Court of Human Rights on 10 May 2012. The Court granted an interim measure requested by the applicants, indicating to the Swiss authorities that the applicants should not be deported to Italy for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.
The European Court of Human Rights will be delivering a Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application no. 29217/12) at a public hearing on Tuesday 4 November 2014 at 11 a.m. local time in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.
The case concerns the refusal of the Swiss authorities to examine the asylum application of an Afghan couple and their six children and the decision to send them back to Italy.
Complaints and procedure
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege that if they were returned to Italy “in the absence of individual guarantees concerning their care”, they would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment linked to the existence of “systemic deficiencies” in the reception arrangements for asylum seekers in Italy.
Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they argue that their return to Italy, where they have no ties and do not speak the language, would be in breach of their right to respect for their family life.
On 24 September 2013 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. A hearing was held on 12 February 2014.
[...]
Das vollständige Urteil finden Sie hier (pdf).