CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 juin 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65 June 2004 Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.) - 17868/03 Decision 22.6.2004 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Expulsion to Tanzania following conviction for spreading HIV: inadmissible Article 3 Expulsion Expulsion to Tanzania, where applicant alleges he would be prevented from receiving treatment for HIV: inadmissible The applicant, a Tanzanian national, was granted a residence permit in Sweden on the basis of his marriage to a Swedish national. The couple, who had two children together, subsequently separated. The applicant was thereafter convicted on two occasions: firstly, for making unlawful threats and carrying knives in public places, and secondly, for aggravated assault after engaging in sexual contacts without disclosing to his partners he was HIV positive, and thus transmitting the infection to two women. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on the last counts, but given the good relationship he had with his daughters, his expulsion was not ordered at first instance. However, the Court of Appeal found the applicant had acted with exceptional ruthlessness and indifference towards his victims, and held him liable for having committed the crimes with intent. His expulsion from Sweden was thus ordered. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. Whilst serving the prison sentence, the applicant filed several petitions for a revocation of the expulsion order. He claimed, backed by medical certificates, that his chances of receiving life-sustaining HIV treatment in Tanzania would be slim. In addition, his close links to his children as well as his new relationship with a Swedish woman would be severely affected by expulsion. All the applicant’s petitions were rejected. Inadmissible under Articles 2 and 3: Although the applicant’s circumstances in Tanzania would be less favourable than those he enjoyed in Sweden, this was not decisive. The applicant could obtain treatment and had some family support in his country of origin. The circumstances were not of such an exceptional nature that expulsion would be contrary to the standards of Articles 2 and 3: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 8: The expulsion order constituted an interference which had a basis in domestic law and pursued the legitimate aim of public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime. It would no doubt have serious implications for the family life of the applicant, whose regular contact with his children would be greatly limited. However, the applicant’s conviction for having had unprotected sexual contacts with three women without disclosing his HIV infection, and as a result having infected two of the victims with the virus, was of the utmost gravity. As there was a risk that he could engage in further conduct of that type, the applicant’s expulsion was not disproportionate to the aim pursued. A fair balance had been struck: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes