Breach of right to respect for private & family life (ECHR)

29.07.10, Strasbourg (ref. applications 24404/05 and 3295/06). The Court upheld claims brought by two Ethiopian female nationals living in Swizerland, and awarded compensation for breach of respect for their private and family life (art. 8 ECHR).

Article 8 ECHR states as follows:

'1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'
 
Applicants were married to other Ethiopians, all of whom were asylum seekers whose applications were refused.  Notwithstanding refusal of their applications for asylum, they were never deported, because the Ethiopian authorities prevented their return. Nor did they return voluntarily, but stayed on in reception centres.

The Swiss Federal Office for Refugees assigned the two applicants and their husbands to particular Cantons (in accordance with the Federal Asylum Act, which seeks to distribute asylum seekers equitably between Cantons). Applications to assign them to the same Canton as their spouses, were refused. They remained assigned to different Cantons, for more than five years.

The Court held that once Swizerland had failed to deport the applicants after their applications for asylum were refused, it assumed responsibiity for them under the Convention. Even if the equitable assignment of the asylum seekers between Cantons could be deemed to fall within the concept of ‘economic well-being of the country’ and public policy, assigning the applicants to the same canton as their spouses would not have significantly increased the number of foreigners in the Canton, or affected the system of equitable distribution, or disrupted public order.  The Court furthermore held that the applicants’ private interests carried much more weight than the advantages of the system for the State, even having regard to the administrative burden and the costs incurred in assigning them to a different Canton.

To read the judgements click  Applic 24404/05 and  Applic 3295/06