FIRST SECTION
CASE OF V.N. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
(Application no. 42101/23)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 8 • Positive obligations • Family life • Refusal to grant a residence permit and suspend the valid deportation order against the husband of a seriously-ill woman with a “short life expectancy” on the basis he posed a threat to public order and security in Sweden • Fair balance struck between competing interests • Margin of appreciation not overstepped
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
19 February 2026
 
 
 
 
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of V.N. and Others v. Sweden,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ivana Jelić, President,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Raffaele Sabato,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Alain Chablais,
 Artūrs Kučs,
 Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 42101/23) 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 four Azerbaijani nationals, Mr V.N. (“the first applicant”), his wife (“the second applicant”), their daughter (“the third applicant”) and their son (“the fourth applicant”), on 7 December 2023;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Swedish Government (“the Government”);
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
the decision to indicate an interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns the refusal by the Swedish authorities to grant a residence permit to the husband of a woman who was seriously ill because the authorities considered him a threat to public order and security in Sweden. The applicants relied on Article 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ personal details are indicated in the appended table. They were represented by Mr D. Gagula, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Bergius, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicants, all Azerbaijani nationals, were living in Baku, Azerbaijan, before arriving in Sweden. FIRST SET OF ASYLUM PROCEEDINGS
6. The applicants entered Sweden on 21 May 2013 and applied for asylum, submitting that the third applicant, who was seven years old at the time, needed an operation. She had a heart condition and had already had operations in Ukraine in May 2007, during which she had been fitted with a pacemaker. The family travelled to Moscow twice a year so that the pacemaker could be checked. The third applicant needed a new pacemaker, but the family claimed that they could not afford the operation. 7. On 4 October 2013 the third applicant’s pacemaker was replaced in Sweden. According to a doctor’s certificate, she would need regular check‑ups thereafter. 8. On 5 June 2014 the Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) rejected the applicants’ request for asylum and ordered their deportation to Azerbaijan. The Migration Agency noted that the available country of origin information (COI) indicated that there were cardiologists in Baku who could check the pacemaker and change its battery, and that batteries for that precise model were available there. It was therefore considered that the necessary care was available for the third applicant in Azerbaijan. The Migration Agency also found that the family had stronger ties to their country of origin than to Sweden, considering the relatively short time they had spent in the country, and that they had family in Azerbaijan but not in Sweden. Deportation was not considered to be contrary to the best interests of the child or Article 8 of the Convention. 9. On 14 November 2014 the decision was upheld by the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen). 10. On 1 April 2015 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal. 11. On 21 April 2015 the applicants were registered as having absconded to avoid the enforcement of their deportation orders. Accordingly, on 25 June 2015 the Migration Agency decided to hand over such enforcement to the police, who on 16 December 2016 found it established that the first applicant had returned to Azerbaijan. THE APPLICANTS’ CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE IMPEDIMENTS TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEPORTATION ORDERS
12. In the meantime, the applicants had claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of their deportation orders. The Migration Agency refused their claims on 2 November 2016. 13. Moreover, since the first applicant no longer appeared to be in Sweden, on 2 May 2018 the Migration Agency dismissed an application which his legal representative had submitted which was based on stated impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order. 14. It was considered that the other applicants, who had remained in Sweden, refused to cooperate with the enforcement of their deportation orders. 15. Being anew in Sweden, in a new application, the first applicant claimed that after returning to Azerbaijan in 2016 he had left the country again on 5 October 2017, after being arrested by the police and then released on bail. The Migration Agency rejected the application on 23 November 2018, finding that such circumstances could not be considered impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order of 1 April 2015. SECOND SET OF ASYLUM PROCEEDINGS
16. Since the applicants refused to leave Sweden voluntarily and it was not possible for the authorities to deport them by force, the deportation orders became statute-barred on 1 April 2019, four years after they had been issued (see paragraph 53 below). 17. On 2 April 2019 the applicants requested asylum again. At that time the third and fourth applicants were 13 and 20 years old respectively. 18. At the beginning of 2020 the second applicant was diagnosed with cervical cancer. 19. On 17 December 2021 the Migration Agency refused to grant the second, third and fourth applicants asylum. However, they were granted temporary residence permits allowing them to live in Sweden until 17 January 2023, for the following reasons. 20. A Medical Country of Origin Information (MedCOI) report that was obtained indicated that at the time, the treatment that the second applicant needed for her metastatic cancer – namely, the drug Bevacizumab/Avastin – was not available to her in Azerbaijan. The Migration Agency did not find that the medical certificates submitted and the prevailing circumstances could justify granting her a permanent residence permit. 21. Another MedCOI report that was obtained indicated that the third applicant would be able to receive the treatment she needed in Azerbaijan. However, the Migration Agency nevertheless considered that in the specific circumstances of the case, deporting her would constitute a disproportionate interference with her right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention. 22. The Migration Agency also considered that, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the fact that the fourth applicant had spent his formative years in Sweden (although illegally) and the second and third applicants were dependent on his support, deporting him would constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention. 23. On 17 December 2021 the Migration Agency rejected the first applicant’s request for asylum and a residence permit, which had been made on the basis of family ties to his wife and children. The Migration Agency noted that there was information indicating that the first applicant was withholding his passport and had submitted falsified documents. More importantly, his own account was that while working for a security company from 2010 to around 2013, he had participated in debt collection and had, in that connection, repeatedly committed crimes including torture, bodily harm kidnapping, extortion and threats. He had thus committed and participated in serious non-political crimes in his home country. Such crimes were subject to prison sentences of up to ten years in Azerbaijan, but were apparently rarely pursued. The first applicant bore individual responsibility for the crimes committed and had not tried to avoid participating in those crimes. The Migration Agency therefore found that he could be considered a real threat to public order and security in Sweden. In addition, the first applicant had lived most of his life in Azerbaijan and had family there, as well as an Azerbaijani cultural and linguistic background. There were no circumstances suggesting that he would experience any difficulties in readapting to the conditions in his home country.

Outcome for Article 8: no_violation