A Russian applicant, of Chechen ethnic origin, complained before the ECtHR against the removal decision issued by the Swiss authorities following the negative decision on his asylum claim. He alleged that his removal would lead to a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention because he would be exposed to a risk of ill-treatment and risk for his life.

The court noted that the applicant first attempted to travel to Switzerland in 2015 and unsuccessfully requested a visa in the Swiss consulate in Moscow. It further noted that in 2018 his mother arrived in Switzerland and was granted asylum. Following a four day travel in a van without information on the route, the applicant reached Switzerland where he applied for asylum on account of alleged persecution in Russia due to involvement in opposition activities and support of separatist movement in Chechnya. His asylum claim was rejected by decision of 15 August 2019 and the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) ordered his expulsion. The SEM found that his claims were contradictory and not credible on three main aspects: i) he applied for a visa in 2015 using a passport issued in one of the central regions of Russia, which rendered implausible his statement of spending most of his life in Chechnya, ii) the claims of alleged temporary detention and subsequent searches by the Chechen authorities were vague, contradictory and inconsistent in view of his repeated voluntary travel to Chechnya, and 3) no media reporting was found and no corroboration on the alleged arrests of students on 1 May 2012.

He further appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court (FAC) which dismissed it and assessed that there was no proof of individual risk and there was no situation of generalised violence in Chechnya. The SAC found that the applicant could reside in other parts of Russia and was described as a healthy young man, who previously lived in central regions of Russia, and who had family and social network in the country.

The ECtHR examined whether the applicant presented substantial grounds, in the light of his individual circumstances, to prove that, if returned, he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the person who alleges that their removal would amount to a breach of Article 3 and they should, to the greatest extent practically possible, adduce material and information allowing the authorities of that Member State, as well as the ECtHR, to assess such risk.

The court first found that the Swiss authorities conducted a thorough examination of the case and that the materials presented showed that the latter fully complied with their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the ECtHR.

With regard to the allegation of a risk related to the ongoing hostilities in Ukraine, the Court found that nothing in the country of origin information consulted, including the EUAA COI query Major developments regarding human rights and military service, Q82-2024, 21 November 2024,  indicated the existence in Rusia of ongoing hostilities or generalised violence affecting civilian population in connection with the war in Ukraine 

The court found no violation of Article 3.