CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 36705/23 and 36706/23 Mumina Ahow ALI against Sweden and Ibrahim Ahow ALI against Sweden both lodged on 4 October 2023 communicated on 2 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal to change the applicants’ registered dates of birth in the Swedish Population Register ( folkbokföringen ). The applicants, both Eritrean nationals, are siblings who arrived in Sweden in 2019 as resettled refugees, together with their mother. At that time, the first applicant’s (Ms Ali) date of birth was registered as 11 January 2009 and the second applicant’s (Mr Ali) as 4 January 2005. Subsequently, their mother requested that the registered dates of birth be changed to 11 January 2011 and 4   January 2010 respectively. She submitted that the incorrect dates of birth had originated from Eritrean documents and that she had been unable to correct this information in Eritrea and during the resettlement process due to her illiteracy and inadequate interpretation. The Tax Agency refused to change the registered dates of birth on the grounds that, although there were many indications that the applicants had not been born in 2009 and 2005 respectively, the evidence presented did not clearly establish that the new dates were correct, which was required pursuant to domestic case-law for the information to be changed. The Administrative Court upheld this decision, finding, inter alia , that it was undisputed that the registered dates were incorrect and that the evidence indicated that the applicants were approximately as young as they claimed. However, the evidence did not clearly establish that they had been born on the alleged dates. The court furthermore found that upholding the required standard of proof was not contrary to the best interests of the child or the Convention. The Administrative Court of Appeal and, on 19 July 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court, refused leave to appeal. The applicants complain that the refusal to change the wrongly registered dates of birth violates their right to respect for their private life under Article   8 of the Convention. They submit, inter alia , that the information in the Population Register forms the basis for a range of rights and obligations for individuals in Sweden; that if a minor is wrongly identified as an adult that may have serious consequences for his or her rights; and that the domestic decisions make it practically impossible for them to correct the registered information despite it being undisputedly incorrect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was lodging a domestic claim to seek compensation for alleged breaches of the Convention, either by lodging a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice or suing the State before the ordinary courts, an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 (see, inter alia , Ruminski v.   Sweden   (dec.), no.   10404/10, §§ 37-38, 21 May 2013; S.J.P. and E.S. v.   Sweden   (dec.), no.   8610/11, §§ 72-73, 16 December 2014; and Paic and   Wernersson v. Sweden (dec.), nos. 12908/23 and 24544/23, §§ 19 and   57-59, 20   May 2025).   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Has the State fulfilled its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, in relation to the applicants’ right to respect for their private life within the meaning of that Article? In particular, have the domestic authorities engaged in a thorough balancing of the interests at issue, specifically taking into account the best interests of the children, and struck a fair balance, subject to their margin of appreciation, between the competing interests involved (see, mutatis mutandis , Darboe and Camara v. Italy , no. 5797/17, §§ 124 and 125, 21   July 2022, and G.T.B. v. Spain , no. 3041/19, §§ 112-19, 16 November 2023).