European Court of Human Rights
14 April 2015
Facts:
The applicant, Mr. Tatar, fled to Switzerland in 1988, claiming prior detention and torture in Turkey for his involvement with the Turkish Communist Party (TCP). He and 2 sons were granted refugee status in 1994; his wife and other children joined him later. In 2001, Tatar killed his wife and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. During proceedings, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and spent 3 years in a psychiatric facility. In March 2009 his refugee status was revoked; in June 2010 his residence permit was withdrawn and he was ordered to leave Switzerland. The Swiss authorities planned his expulsion to Turkey, and Tatar alleged this would expose him to torture, ill‑treatment by Turkish authorities or his wife’s relatives, and life-threatening conditions due to lack of psychiatric care.
Complaint:
Tatar claimed violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment) due to inadequate mental health care in Turkey as well as potential threats from his late wife’s family. Under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complained about the fairness of the proceedings leading to the revocation of his refugee status and residence permit as there was no public hearing. And, under Article 8 (right to private and family life), he argued that his expulsion would disproportionately interfere with his private life, given his long-term residence and medical treatment in Switzerland.
Court's Ruling:
Under Articles 2 and 3, the Court examined whether there was a real risk to the applicant’s life or ill-treatment. Under Article 3, recalling that the expulsion of a seriously ill person may raise issues under this provision if the removal would expose the individual to a real risk of suffering that attains the minimum level of severity. It found that although the applicant suffered from a chronic mental illness, psychiatric treatment would be available to him in Turkey, particularly in larger cities. Furthermore, the Swiss authorities had made arrangements to inform the Turkish authorities in advance to ensure the continuity of medical care. The Court also considered that the alleged threats from the applicant’s wife’s family were speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. With respect to Article 2, the Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a real and immediate risk to his life in Turkey. There was no evidence of a direct threat or specific targeting by individuals in Turkey, and the claim remained too vague to raise an issue under this provision.
Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the applicant would not face a real risk of harm if returned and therefore found no violation of Articles 2 or 3.
Under Article 6, the applicant claimed a right to a fair hearing regarding his expulsion. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Article 6 does not apply to expulsion cases, as they do not concern “civil rights or obligations”, thus it does not apply in the instant case.
The applicant also raised an Article 8 complaint regarding respect for private and family life. However, the Court declared this claim inadmissible, as the applicant had not raised this claim before the Federal Supreme Court, thus the domestic remedies had not been exhausted.