Case Law

On 11 February 2020, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal (TAF) ruled in case F-7195/2018 concerning the Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker to Bulgaria that there are no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in Bulgaria, and that there is no reason for a complete suspension of Dublin transfers to Bulgaria. The court ruled that the Swiss asylum authority SEM should assess on a case-to-case basis whether a Dublin transfer must be suspended. This examination could include obtaining concrete and prior guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities. A transfer is only possible if the possibility that the asylum-seeker concerned would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on his return to Bulgaria is excluded. In this particular case, the appeal against the transfer decision was made by the applicant, arguing that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which could not be treated adequately in Bulgaria, that she risked not being able to access the regular reception services due to the fact that her asylum application had already been rejected by the Bulgarian authorities, that she even risked being detained and subjected to inhuman conditions and that she finally risked being returned to her country of origin contrary to the principle of non-refoulement. Taking her particular circumstances into account, the TAF quashed the transfer decision and upheld the appeal, ruling that even though there are no systemic deficiencies in the asylum system in Bulgaria, the transfer decision should be based on a detailed analysis of all relevant circumstances of the asylum seeker.

11 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - Reception - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Bulgaria - Sri Lanka - Switzerland

The Court recalls that the exemption clause for asylum is based on restrictive conditions. Under the Asylum Act (AsylA) and subject to the SEM’s approval, a residence permit may be granted in accordance with the applicable provisions on asylum to any person who has stayed in Switzerland for at least five years from the date the asylum application was submitted, whose place of residence has always been known to the authorities and for whom it is a case of serious hardship due to a high level of integration. The appellant fulfils the first two conditions. With respect to the third condition, the Court underlines, in particular, the misuse of procedures for the purpose of artificially extending the appellant’s stay. It reached the conclusion that the person’s track record in Switzerland to date was not of a nature that justified the granting of a residence permit.

26 September 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Rejected asylum-seekers - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Russian Federation - Switzerland

The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) confirmed that Eritrean citizens whose applications for asylum have been rejected may be deported back to Eritrea even if they risk being called up for national service upon return to Eritrea. The obligation to work for the state, the low pay and the indefinite time of the national service, constitutes a disproportionate burden, but does not prevent the enforcement of a deportation order.

7 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Eritreans - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

6 April 2017 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Passports - Rejected asylum-seekers - Statelessness - Travel documents | Countries: Nigeria - Russian Federation - Sierra Leone - Switzerland

This decision by the Federal Administrative Court updates the Court's decision of 14 February 2008 (Tribunal administratif fédéral ATAF 2008/2). It states that political opponents, critical journalists, human rights activists, critical NGO representatives, as well as victims of or witnesses to serious human rights violations and persons who are presumed to have close contacts to the LTTE represented groups are still at risk of persecution in Sri Lanka. In general, returns to Sri Lanka including the East and North are considered reasonable, with the exception of Vanni region where no returns should take place. For persons who left the northern province some time ago, the existence of social network and chances for securing minimal living conditions should be considered.

27 October 2011 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Involuntary repatriation - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Sri Lanka - Switzerland