FIFTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN
 
(Application no. 43611/11)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
16 January 2014
 
 
THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 23/03/2016
 
 
 
This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of F.G. v. Sweden,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Mark Villiger, President,
 Angelika Nußberger,
 Boštjan M. Zupančič,
 Ann Power-Forde,
 André Potocki,
 Paul Lemmens,
 Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 December 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 43611/11) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Iranian national, Mr F.G. (“the applicant”), on 12 July 2011. The President of the Section acceded to the applicant’s request not to have his name disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 2. The applicant was represented by Mr G. Donner, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Lindquist, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that his expulsion to Iran would involve a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. 4. On 25 October 2011 the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to Iran for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 5. On the same day, 25 October 2011, the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicant is an Iranian national who was born in 1962 and is currently in Sweden. A. Background and proceedings before the Swedish authorities
7. The applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden on 16 November 2009. Before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) he stated the following. In Iran, he had worked with persons, connected to different universities, who were known to oppose the regime. He had mainly worked on creating and publishing web pages. He and one of the other persons had been arrested in April 2007. He had been released after 24 hours and then hospitalised for ten days due to high blood pressure. Before the elections on 12 June 2009, the applicant had worked with the Green Movement, who had supported Mousavi for the presidential position, by spreading their message via the Internet. The day before the elections, he and his friends had been arrested, questioned and detained in the polling station overnight. After the elections, the applicant had participated in demonstrations and other activities. He had been arrested once again in September 2009 and imprisoned for twenty days. In October 2009 he had been taken before the Revolutionary Court, which had released him after a day on condition that he cooperate with the authorities and spy on his friends. He had agreed to the demands and given his business premises as a guarantee. He had also assured them that he would not participate in any demonstrations and that he would respond to their summons. Following his release in a park, he had found that his business premises had been searched. He had kept politically sensitive material there, which the authorities must have noticed, and his passport and other documents were gone. On 2 November 2009 the applicant had been summoned to appear before the Revolutionary Court. He had contacted a friend who, in turn, had obtained the help of a smuggler to enable him to leave the country. He had converted to Christianity after coming to Sweden. The applicant submitted, inter alia, a summons from the Revolutionary Court which stated that he should present himself at Evin prison in Teheran on 2 November 2009. 8. On 29 April 2010 the Migration Board rejected the request. It first stated that the applicant had not proven his identity but that he had made it and his citizenship probable. Turning to the applicant’s asylum story, the Board held that participation in demonstrations or affiliation with the Green Movement could not, of itself, give rise to a risk of persecution, ill-treatment or punishment on return to Iran. The Board noted that the applicant had changed his story in some parts during the proceedings; in particular, he had changed his statements concerning how many times he had been arrested. Furthermore, he had not been able to name the park where he had been released. Thus, the Board found reason to question whether he had been arrested at all. The Board further considered that the applicant’s political activities had been limited. After the questioning in 2007 and until the elections in 2009, he had been able to continue working with the web pages that contained the critical material, even though the authorities at this time were allegedly aware of his activities.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 2
Outcome: no_violation