Last Updated: Monday, 17 October 2022, 12:22 GMT
Latest Refworld Updates for Sweden RSS feed

Sweden - flag Sweden

Selected filters: Legal Information Case Law
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 159 results
MIG 2021:20, case no. UM5998-21

20 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Reception Conditions Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Immigration Detention - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Sweden

A.A. v. Sweden

20 January 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Christian - Deportation / Forcible return - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Afghanistan - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Sweden

Z.H. v. Sweden

6 September 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) | Topic(s): Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CPRD) - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Mental health | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

MIG 2021:14, case no. UM2839-20

8 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

B.B. v. Sweden (Communication No. 3069/2015)

The Committee considered that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan, in particular taking into account his father’s alleged threats of revenge and his trauma as a result of parental abuse. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in Afghanistan and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.

30 April 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Human rights law | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

A,B, and C v. the Swedish Migration Agency

In an overall assessment of the exceptional circumstances in A's case and with special regard to her very strong connection to Sweden, the Court considers that her best interests outweigh the opposing interests of the State. An expulsion of A to Lebanon can therefore not be consid-ered proportionate and would thus be in violation of the CRC. A is therefore granted a residence permit in Sweden. B and C are granted residence permits as it would be in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR to separate the family.

22 December 2020 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Right to family life | Countries: Lebanon - Sweden

A.E. v. Sweden

28 May 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Nigeria - Sweden

J.I. v. Sweden

7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes the finding of the Migration Agency that, while claiming a risk of harm in Afghanistan because of his Christian faith, the author failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim that his faith had attracted the attention of: the Afghan authorities through his texts on social media networks and his appearance in the Swedish media; the staff members of the Afghan Embassy in Stockholm; and other Afghan detainees in the migration detention centre. The Committee also finds that although the author contests the assessment and findings of the Swedish authorities, he has not presented any evidence to the Committee to substantiate his claim that he has been targeted by the Afghan authorities on the basis of his Christianity, or that his alleged Christianity is indeed known to the Afghan authorities. 7.7 The Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk of irreparable harm faced by the author upon his return to Afghanistan. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has not shown that the Migration Agency’s decision of 30 December 2015 was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or that it amounted to a denial of justice.

22 May 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Christian - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

Q.A. v. Sweden

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Atheist / Agnostic - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Right to life | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

Migrationsöverdomstolens avgöranden den 25 april 2018 i MIG 2018:7 och MIG 2018:8 (mål nr UM 1970-17 resp. UM 2189-17)

only available in Swedish

25 April 2018 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Sweden - Syrian Arab Republic

Search Refworld