CASE OF KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

No violation of P1-2;No violation of Art. 14+P1-2;No violation of Art. 8+P1-2;No violation of Art. 9+P1-2

The applicants , who are parents of NORP nationality , reside in GPE . Mr. PERSON , a galvaniser , and his wife PERSON , a schoolteacher , live in PERSON ; Mr. PERSON , a clergyman , and his wife PERSON , a schoolteacher , come from PERSON ; Mr. PERSON , who is a clergyman , and Mrs. PERSON have their home in ORG .

All CARDINAL couples , having children of school age , object to integrated , and hence compulsory , sex education as introduced into ORG primary schools in GPE by Act No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , amending LAW ( Lov om ændring af lov om folkeskolen , hereinafter referred to as " LAW " ) .

Primary education in general

According to LAW , all children have the right to free education in the ORG primary schools ( folkeskolen ) , although parents are not obliged to enrol them there and may send them to a private school or instruct them at home .

During DATE , a total of CARDINAL pupils were attending CARDINAL schools , of which CARDINAL were private with CARDINAL pupils . Some parents chose to educate their children at home .

At the time of the facts at issue , primary education in ORG schools was governed by GPE ( Lov om folkeskolen ) ( a consolidated version of which was set out in Executive Order No . CARDINAL of DATE ) , which had been amended on various occasions DATE .

Primary education lasted for DATE ; DATE , as well as DATE for children of DATE , were voluntary .

The subjects taught in DATE were NORP , writing , arithmetic , knowledge of NORP ( kristendomskundskab ) , history , geography , biology , physical training , music , creative art and needlework . In DATE , LANGUAGE and woodwork were added , and in DATE NORP , mathematics , natural sciences and domestic science . As from DATE the pupils were , to some extent , allowed to choose from these courses the subjects they preferred .

Under the LAW , the Minister of ORG determined the objectives of schooling and the local school authorities fixed the contents of the curriculum and the number of lessons . There were , however , CARDINAL exceptions to this rule . Firstly , religious instruction was to be in conformity with the NORP GPE doctrine of ORG , but children might be exempted therefrom . Secondly , the legislator had directed schools to include in their curricula , often in conjunction with traditional subjects , certain new topics such as road safety , civics , hygiene and sex education .

The administration of ORG schools in GPE is largely decentralised . These institutions are run by the municipal council , the highest education authority in each of the CARDINAL municipalities in that country , as well as by a school commission and a school board .

The school commission ( skolekommissionen ) is as a general rule composed of CARDINAL members of whom CARDINAL are elected by the municipal council and CARDINAL by the parents . The commission , in consultation with the ORG council and within the limits laid down by law , prepares the curriculum for the schools within its district . The curriculum must be approved by the municipal council . To assist these bodies in the performance of their tasks , the Minister of ORG issues guidelines prepared by ORG ( hereinafter referred to as " ORG " ) , set up in DATE .

Each State school has a school board ( skolenævn ) which comprises CARDINAL or CARDINAL members ; CARDINAL member is chosen by the municipal council , the CARDINAL others by the parents . The board supervises the school and organises co - operation between school and parents . It decides , upon recommendation from the ORG council , what teaching aids and in particular what books are to be used by the school and it also determines the distribution of lessons among the teachers .

Primary education at private schools or at home must not fall below the standards laid down for ORG schools ; it must cover the same compulsory subjects and be of comparable quality . While a school may be established without any advance approval , it is subsequently supervised by the school commissions in order to ensure , in particular , that adequate instruction is given in NORP , writing and arithmetic . The same applies to education given in the home ; if the school commission finds twice in succession that such teaching is inadequate , the parents are required to send the child to a ORG or private school .

The ORG supports private schools provided that they have not CARDINAL pupils in all and not less than ten pupils per class . The ORG subsidises CARDINAL per cent of their running costs ( principal ’s and ORG salaries , maintenance of buildings , heating , electricity , water , cleaning , insurance , etc . ) . In addition , private schools may be granted government loans on favourable terms for construction and improvement of buildings . As a result , parents who enrol their children at a private school do not in general have to bear school fees in excess of CARDINAL MONEY per child per annum ; during the DATE their average expenditure scarcely exceeded CARDINAL MONEY . ORG voted in DATE in favour of a proposal which would oblige municipalities to bear a large proportion of the cost of transport for children attending private schools .

The statistics on private schools show that , in DATE , there were CARDINAL " free " schools ; CARDINAL private grammar schools without special religious background ; CARDINAL NORP schools ; CARDINAL NORP minority schools ; CARDINAL schools for members of other religious societies ; CARDINAL " NORP free " schools ; and CARDINAL other schools .

The applicants claim that there are insufficient private schools and that their pupils frequently have to travel long distances to attend them ; moreover , parents wishing to send their children to a private school in ORG have to enter them on waiting lists DATE in advance .

Sex education

In GPE , sex education in State schools has been a topic of discussion for DATE . DATE , sex education was introduced in the ORG schools of ORG and several institutions outside the capital copied this example . Nevertheless , the Minister of ORG spoke against compulsory sex education when the question was raised in DATE .

In DATE , ORG published a " Guide to teaching in ORG schools " which distinguished between instruction on the reproduction of man and sex education proper . The ORG recommended that the former be integrated in the biology syllabus while the latter should remain optional for children and teachers and be provided by medical staff . ORG also advised that guidelines for schools be drawn up on the contents of , and the terminology to be used in , sex education .

In a Circular of CARDINAL DATE , the Minister of Education adopted the ORG ’s conclusions : as from DATE CARDINAL/CARDINAL reproduction of man became a compulsory part of biology lessons whereas an official guide issued by ORG , dating from DATE , specified that only those children whose parents had given their express consent should receive sex education proper .

ORG , anxious to reduce the disconcerting increase in the frequency of unwanted pregnancies , instructed a committee in DATE to examine the problem of sex education ( ORG ) . The setting up of such a committee had been urged , among others , by ORG ( ORG ) under the chairmanship of Mrs. Else - Merete Ross , a Member of ORG , and by ORG ( PERSON ) . DATE the latter bodies received applications for assistance from CARDINAL young unmarried mothers of whom CARDINAL were DATE below CARDINAL . In addition , many children , often of very young parents , were born within DATE after marriage . Legal abortions , for their part , numbered CARDINAL every year and , according to expert opinions , illegal abortions CARDINAL whereas the DATE birth rate was hardly CARDINAL .

In DATE , after a thorough examination of the problem , the above - mentioned committee , which was composed of doctors , educationalists , lawyers , theologians and government experts , submitted a report ( No . CARDINAL ) entitled " Sex Education in State Schools " ( ORG m.v . , PERSON . CARDINAL ) . Modelling itself on the system that had been in force in GPE for DATE , the committee recommended in its report that sex education be integrated into compulsory subjects on the curriculum of ORG schools . However , there should be no obligation for teachers to take part in this teaching .

The report was based on the idea that it was essential for sexual instruction to be adapted to the children ’s different degrees of maturity and to be taught in the natural context of other subjects , for instance when questions by the children presented the appropriate opportunity . This method appeared to the committee particularly suited to prevent the subject from becoming delicate or speculative . The report emphasised that instruction in the matter should take the form of discussions and informal talks between teachers and pupils . Finally it gave an outline of the contents of sex education and recommended the drawing up of a new guide for State schools .

In DATE , the Minister of ORG tabled a PERSON before ORG to amend LAW . The PERSON provided , inter alia , that sex education should become obligatory and an integrated part of general teaching in ORG primary schools . In this respect , the PERSON was based on the recommendations of the committee on sex education , with CARDINAL exception : following a declaration from ORG , it did not grant teachers a general right of exemption from participation in such instruction .

The PERSON had received the support not only of this ORG but also of ORG representing on the national level education committees , school boards and GPE associations , and of ORG .

Section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the DATE Act , which was passed unanimously by ORG and became law on CARDINAL DATE , added " library organisation and sex education " to the list of subjects to be taught , set out in LAW para . CARDINAL of LAW . Accordingly the latter text henceforth read as follows ( ORG No . CARDINAL of DATE ) :

" In addition to the foregoing , the following shall also apply to teaching in primary schools :

road safety , library organisation and sex education shall form an integral part of teaching in the manner specified by the Minister of Education .

The LAW entered into force on DATE . As early as DATE , a Circular from the Minister of Education ( ORG om ændring af folkeskoleloven ) had advised municipal councils , school commissions , school boards , ORG councils and headmasters of schools outside ORG " that further texts , accompanied by new teaching instructions , on sex education would be issued " . The ORG specified that " henceforth , parents ( would ) still have the possibility of exempting their children from such education and teachers that of not dispensing it " .

After the passing of LAW , the Minister of ORG requested ORG to prepare a new guide to sex education in State schools intended to replace the DATE guide ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The new guide ( PERSON om seksualoplysning I folkeskolen , hereinafter referred to as " the Guide " ) was completed in DATE ; it set out the objectives of sex education as well as certain general principles that ought to govern it , and suggested detailed curricula for the various classes .

On the basis of the recommendations in the Guide , the Minister of ORG laid down in Executive Order No . CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG om seksualoplysning i folkeskolen ) the rules of which he had given notice in his FAC of DATE .

The Executive Order - which applied to primary education and the first level of secondary education in State schools outside GPE DATE was worded as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The objective of sex education shall be to impart to the pupils knowledge which could :

( a ) help them avoid such insecurity and apprehension as would otherwise cause them problems ;

( b ) promote understanding of a connection between sex life , love life and general human relationships ;

( c ) enable the individual pupil independently to arrive at standpoints which harmonise best with his or her personality ;

( d ) stress the importance of responsibility and consideration in matters of sex .

( CARDINAL ) Sex education at all levels shall form part of the instruction given , in the general school subjects , in particular NORP , knowledge of NORP , biology ( hygiene ) , history ( civics ) and domestic relations . In addition , a general survey of the main topics covered by sex education may be given in DATE .

( CARDINAL ) The organisation and scope of sex education shall be laid down in or in accordance with the curriculum . Assistance in this respect is to be obtained from ORG issued by ORG . If the special instruction referred to in the second sentence of LAW para . CARDINAL is provided in DATE , a small number of lessons shall be set aside DATE for this purpose .

( CARDINAL ) Restrictions may not be imposed upon the range of matters dealt with in accordance with sub - section CARDINAL so as to render impossible the fulfilment of the purpose of sex education .

( CARDINAL ) The restrictions on the carrying out of sex education in schools , as indicated in DATE , shall apply regardless of the provisions of the curriculum .

( CARDINAL ) Sex education shall be given by the teachers responsible for giving lessons on the subjects with which it is integrated in the relevant class and in accordance with the directives of the principal of the school . If it is not clear from the curriculum which subjects are linked to the various topics to be taught , the class teachers shall distribute the work , as far as need be , in accordance with the recommendation of the ORG council ; this latter opinion must be approved by the school board pursuant to section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW .

( CARDINAL ) A teacher can not be compelled against his will to give the special instruction in DATE referred to in the second sentence of section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) The present Order shall come into force on DATE .

( CARDINAL ) At the same time the right of parents to have their children exempted from sex education given at school shall cease . They may nevertheless , on application to the principal of the school , have them exempted from the special instruction referred to in the second sentence of section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) ... "

A Ministry of Education Circular ( NORP om seksualoplysning i folkeskolen ) , also dated DATE and sent to the same authorities as that of DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) , gave the recipients , inter alia , certain particulars on the preparation of ORG school curricula in this field . It drew , in particular , their attention to the fact that " it was for the school commission , after discussion with the joint council of teachers , to prepare draft provisions governing sex education to be included in the curricula of the schools of the municipality " . Recalling that these provisions may take the form of a simple reference to the recommendations in the Guide , the ORG pointed out that the Guide gave , for DATE classes , various possibilities as regards the manner and scope of teaching . Thus , if there were a simple reference to the Guide , " it is for the institution ( ORG council ) to take a decision in this respect with the agreement of the school board " .

The objectives set out in ORG of DATE were identical with those of the Guide , except that the latter contains an addition to the effect that schools must try to develop in pupils openness with regard to the sexual aspects of human life and to bring about such openness through an attitude that will make them feel secure .

The principle of integration , provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of ORG , is explained as follows in the Guide :

" The main purpose of integration is to place sex guidance in a context where the sexuality of man does not appear as a special phenomenon . Sexuality is not a purely physical matter ... nor is it a purely technical matter .... On the other hand it is not of such emotional impact that it can not be taken up for objective and sober discussion . ... The topic should therefore form an integral part of the overall school education ... "

As for the definition of the manner and scope of sex education ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of ORG ) , the Guide indicates the matters that may be included in the ORG school curricula .

In DATE instruction begins with the concept of the family and then moves on to the difference between the sexes , conception , birth and development of the child , family planning , relations with adults whom the children do not know and puberty .

The list of subjects suggested for DATE includes the sexual organs , puberty , hormones , heredity , sexual activities ( masturbation , intercourse , orgasm ) , fertilisation , methods of contraception , venereal diseases , sexual deviations ( in particular homosexuality ) and pornography .

The teaching given in DATE returns to the matters touched on during DATE but puts the accent on the ethical , social and family aspects of sexual life . The ORG mentions sexual ethics and sexual morals ; different views on sexual life before marriage ; sexual and marital problems in the light of different religious and political viewpoints ; the role of the sexes ; love , sex and faithfulness in marriage ; divorce , etc .

ORG advocates an instruction method centred on informal talks between teachers and children on the basis of the latter questions . It emphasises that " the instruction must be so tactful as not to offend or frighten the child " and that it " must respect each child ’s right to adhere to conceptions it has developed itself " . To the extent that the discussion bears on ethical and moral problems of sexual life , the PERSON recommends teachers to adopt an objective attitude ; it specifies :

" The teacher should not identify himself with or dissociate himself from the conceptions dealt with . However , it does not necessarily prevent the teacher from showing his personal view . The demand for objectivity is amplified by the fact that the school accepts children from all social classes . It must be possible for all parents to reckon safely on their children not being influenced in a unilateral direction which may deviate from the opinion of the home . It must be possible for the parents to trust that the ethical basic points of view will be presented objectively and soberly . "

ORG also directs teachers not to use vulgar terminology or erotic photographs , not to enter into discussions of sexual matters with a single pupil outside the group and not to impart to pupils information about the technique of sexual intercourse ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of ORG ) .

The applicants claim , however , that in practice vulgar terminology is used to a very wide extent . They refer to a book by PERSON called " Dreng og Pige , PERSON " ( " Boy and Girl , Man and Woman " ) of which CARDINAL copies have been sold in GPE . According to them it frequently uses vulgar terminology , explains the technique of coitus and shows photographs depicting erotic situations .

On the subject of relations between school and parents , the LOC points out , inter alia :

" In order to achieve an interaction between sex education at the school and at home respectively , it will be expedient to keep parents acquainted with the manner and scope of the sex education given at school . Parent class meetings are a good way of establishing this contact between school and parents . Discussions there will provide the opportunity for emphasising the objective of sexual instruction at the school and for making it clear to parents that it is not the school ’s intention to take anything away from them but rather ... to establish co - operation for the benefit of all parties . It can also be pointed out to parents that the integrated education allows the topic to be taken up exactly where it arises naturally in the other fields of instruction and that , generally , this is only practicable if sex education is compulsory for pupils . ... Besides , through his contacts with the homes the class teacher will be able to learn enough about the GPE attitude towards the school , towards their own child and towards its special problems . During discussions about the sex education given by the school , sceptical parents will often be led to realise the justification for co - operation between school and home in this field as well . Some children may have special requirements or need special consideration and it will often be the parents of these children who are difficult to contact . The teacher should be aware of this fact . When gradually the teacher , homes and children have come to know each other , a relationship of trust may arise which will make it possible to begin sex education in a way that is satisfactory to all parties . "

ORG . CARDINAL of DATE , which came into force on CARDINAL DATE , repealed ORG of DATE . The new Order reads :

( CARDINAL ) The objective of the sex education provided in LOC shall be to impart to the pupils such knowledge of sex life as will enable them to take care of themselves and show consideration for others in that respect .

( CARDINAL ) Schools are therefore required , as a minimum , to provide instruction on the anatomy of the reproductive organs , on conception and contraception and on venereal diseases to such extent that the pupils will not later in life land themselves or others in difficulties solely on account of lack of knowledge . Additional and more far - reaching goals of instruction may be established within the framework of the objective set out in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) above .

( CARDINAL ) Sex education shall start not later than in DATE ; it shall form part of the instruction given in the general school subjects , in particular NORP , knowledge of NORP , biology ( hygiene ) , history ( civics ) and domestic relations . In addition , a general survey of the main topics covered by sex education may be given in the sixth or seventh and in DATE .

The organisation and scope of sex education shall be laid down in or in accordance with the curriculum . If the special instruction referred to in the second sentence of section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL is provided , a small number of lessons shall be set aside for this purpose in the relevant DATE .

( CARDINAL ) A teacher can not be compelled against his will to give the special instruction referred to in the second sentence of section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL . Nor shall it be incumbent upon the teacher to impart to pupils information about coital techniques or to use photographic pictures representing erotic situations .

On application to the principal of the school , parents may have their children exempted from the special instruction referred to in the second sentence of section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL .

In a Circular of DATE ( NORP om ændring af reglerne om seksualoplysning i folkeskolen ) , sent to the same authorities as that of DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Minister of ORG stated that the aim of the new Executive Order was to enable local school authorities and , consequently , parents to exert greater influence on the organisation of the teaching in question . In addition , sex education , which " remains an integral part of school education , which is to say that it should form part of the instruction given in obligatory subjects " , was to have a more confined objective and place greater emphasis on factual information .

The ORG pointed out that henceforth sex education could be postponed until DATE . It also mentioned that , whilst ORG no longer contained a reference to ORG - which was still in force - , this was to emphasise that the Guide was simply an aid to local school authorities in the drawing up of curricula .

Finally , the ORG gave details on the role of teachers . If a teacher thought he would not be able to take care of this instruction in a satisfactory manner , he should be afforded the opportunity of attending one of the information courses provided by ORG . In addition , the Minister expressly recommended that special consideration be given to the personal and professional qualifications of teachers when courses including sex education are distributed amongst them .

According to the applicants , the result of ORG of DATE was to free teachers from the duty of giving instruction in sex . It was alleged that in fact the Minister of ORG issued it because many teachers vigorously protested against this duty .

On DATE , ORG passed a new FAC No . CARDINAL ) , which became fully effective on CARDINAL DATE . However , it has not amended any of the provisions relevant to the present case ; sex education remains an integral and obligatory part of instruction in the elementary school . Neither has the LAW changed the former rules on the influence of parents on the management and supervision of ORG schools .

While the PERSON was being examined by ORG , ORG tabled an amendment according to which parents would be allowed to ask that their children be exempted from attending sex education . This amendment was rejected by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .

Although primary education in private schools must in principle cover all the topics obligatory at State schools ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) , sex education is an exception in this respect . Private schools are free to decide themselves to what extent they wish to align their teaching in this field with the rules applicable to State schools . However , they must include in the biology syllabus a course on the reproduction of man similar to that obligatory in State schools since DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicants maintain that the introduction of compulsory sex education did not correspond at all with the general wish of the population . A headmaster in ORG allegedly collected CARDINAL protest signatures in a very short space of time . Similarly , an opinion poll carried out by ORG and published on DATE by a DATE newspaper , ORG , is said to have shown that , of a random sample of CARDINAL persons aged DATE or more , MONEY were in favour of an optional system , MONEY were against any sex education whatsoever in primary schools and CARDINAL per cent approved the system instituted by LAW .

According to the authors of CARDINAL articles , published in DATE in the medical journal FAC and produced to ORG , the introduction of sex education has not , moreover , brought about the results desired by the legislator . On the contrary indeed , the number of unwanted pregnancies and of abortions is said to have increased substantially DATE . The Government argue that the statistics from DATE can not be taken as reflecting the effects of legislation whose application in practice began only in DATE .

Facts relating to the applicants

Mr. and Mrs. PERSON have a daughter called PERSON . She was born in DATE and attended GPE municipal school in PERSON . All the municipal schools in this town were still using , until the DATE , the curricula adopted in DATE , that is , before LAW entered into force . In PERSON the curriculum changed only with effect from ORG .

On DATE , the applicants asked the Minister of Education to exempt their daughter from sex education , saying they wished to give her this instruction themselves .

On DATE , the ORG replied to the effect that a new Executive Order on sex education in State schools was in the course of preparation .

The applicants complained to ORG but without any result . They then approached ORG ( PERSON ombudsmand ) who told them on DATE that he had no competence to deal with the matter .

ORG , in a letter of DATE , advised the applicants that Executive Order No . CARDINAL ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been issued and added that , for practical reasons , it was not possible to exempt children from integrated sex instruction .

On DATE , the applicants wrote again to ORG , this time enquiring about sex education in private schools . ORG told them on DATE that private schools were not obliged to provide instruction beyond that which , since DATE , they had been obliged to give within the context of the biology syllabus .

DATE before , that is , on DATE , the school commission of PERSON had refused a request by the applicants that their daughter should be given free private education .

DATE . On DATE , the ORG replied to a further letter , dated DATE , in which the applicants had requested new legislation to provide for free education without sex instruction . ORG said that it did not intend to propose such legislation and it also refused to arrange for the ORG daughter to receive separate education . Referring to the reply given to another person who , in the same field , had invoked LAW No . CARDINAL ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , the ORG stated that NORP legislation on sex education complied with this provision , particularly in view of the existence of private schools .

On DATE , the applicants asked ORG why the curricula of the Varde municipal schools had not yet been adapted to the new legislation on sex education ; the file in the case does not reveal whether the ORG replied .

Meanwhile , the applicants had withdrawn their daughter from the GPE school and during the DATE they educated her at home . In DATE they again sent her to the Varde municipal school ( Brorsonskolen ) .

They maintained before the ORG that the nearest private school was QUANTITY from their home and that their daughter , who had diabetes , could not be away from home for DATE . The Government did not contest these claims .

Mr. and Mrs. PERSON have CARDINAL children , the eldest of whom began school in DATE at a ORG school in PERSON . They attempted unsuccessfully to have their children exempted from sex instruction .

Mr. and Mrs. PERSON have CARDINAL children , of whom CARDINAL were of school age in DATE . CARDINAL of them , PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE , attended private schools in order to avoid having to follow sex education courses ; the third , PERSON , born in DATE , was enrolled at the PERSON municipal school in ORG . The applicants paid CARDINAL MONEY a month for ORG , who left the latter school in DATE to attend a private boarding school at GPE ( PERSON ) , and PERSON for PERSON .

The PERSON had asked the competent authorities DATE likewise unsuccessfully - to exempt their children from sex instruction . They stated in their application that they were considering sending their third child as well to a private school , if the ORG could not help them .

In DATE , the applicants complained about the use of certain books on sex education at the above - mentioned school . These books had apparently been approved by the school board in consultation with the teachers at the school .

ORG ( PERSON amtsråds undervisnings - og kulturudvalg ) decided , however , on DATE to uphold the school board ’s action and this decision was confirmed by the Minister of ORG on CARDINAL DATE .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

In its tax return for value - added tax for DATE , ORG , a limited liability company owned by the applicant , claimed a right to deduct value - added tax ( ORG ) in the amount of MONEY ( SEK ) which had allegedly been paid in connection with the purchase of certain computer software rights .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( skattemyndigheten ) of GPE refused the deduction , considering that it was based on a fictitious transaction . The ORG also ordered the company to pay a tax surcharge ( skattetillägg ) amounting to PERCENT of the increased tax liability , claiming that the company had submitted incorrect information in its tax return . On the basis of this decision the ORG , on DATE , reported the applicant to the police authorities in GPE on suspicion that he had committed a tax crime ( hereinafter referred to as “ case A ” ) .

As a consequence of the report , a preliminary investigation was opened on DATE . The applicant was questioned on DATE . The Växjö police authorities completed its investigation on DATE and the applicant received , on DATE , a copy of the file .

Another preliminary investigation , initiated in DATE and involving , inter alia , the applicant , was being conducted by the special department for economic crimes of ORG ( åklagarmyndigheten ) in GPE ( hereinafter referred to as “ case B ” ) . As the CARDINAL investigations were considered to have much in common , they were joined and , as from DATE , directed by the prosecutor in GPE .

In the tax proceedings , the applicant ’s company appealed against the imposition of a tax surcharge . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE found that , although there were circumstances in the case which justified the calling into question of the right to the claimed GPE deduction , there was not sufficient evidence to show that the transaction in question had been fictitious or that the information submitted in the tax return in this respect had been incorrect in any other sense . The court noted that the mere rejection , under taxation law , of the arguments made in support of a claim for deduction of tax could not in itself lead to the conclusion that incorrect information had been submitted . Consequently , the court quashed ORG decision in so far as it concerned the imposition of a tax surcharge . The ORG did not appeal against the judgment .

The applicant alleges that , following ORG judgment , he and his legal counsel requested both ORG and ORG in GPE to observe it and to take action accordingly .

During the criminal investigations it emerged that , in case A , the applicant , as representative of ORG , had bought computer software and certain related sales rights from ORG , a company which had previously been owned by the applicant ’s brother , GPE , and in which the brother was considered to have a continuing deciding influence . The latter company had , in its turn , bought the software from another company owned by ORG , ORG . Moreover , ORG purchase had been financed by ORG

In case B , ORG had financed the purchase by an NORP company of certain licensing rights to computer software from a NORP company , ORG . That company had , in its turn , bought the rights from another NORP company , ORG , of which , inter alia , the applicant was a representative . The latter company had claimed to have purchased the rights from a NORP company which later turned out to be non - existent . A third NORP company , ORG , thus having a similar name as the one that had bought the licensing rights from ORG , had claimed in its tax return for the period DATE a deduction for ORG paid on the basis of that sales agreement , although it had not been a partner to the agreement and therefore not entitled to claim the deduction . It was suspected that the transactions in case B had been initiated by GPE and that he had had a deciding influence over the various NORP companies . Moreover , the computer software to which the licensing rights applied had been of insignificant value , according to an expert opinion , and it was suspected that the transactions had been carried out in order to fraudulently obtain ORG refunds . The applicant , ORG and a third person were suspected of tax crimes in relation to the ORG claim in case B.

ORG concluded that the persons involved , the mode of action and the relevant time - periods were essentially the same in cases A and B and considered that the possibilities of indicting both the applicant and GPE were good . It was further considered that , in regard to both cases and thus in regard also to the suspicions against the applicant , it was necessary to hear ORG , who was living in GPE , GPE .

In the beginning of the investigation into case B , ORG had expressed his readiness to be interviewed by the NORP police . GPE having later changed his mind , the prosecutor had , via ORG and ORG in GPE , in DATE requested legal assistance from the NORP authorities in obtaining information from a bank concerning certain documents submitted by ORG which were suspected to be forgeries . No information was forthcoming from the NORP police authorities in charge of the matter and further contacts via diplomatic channels were therefore taken in DATE and in DATE and DATE . By a decision of the public prosecutor of CARDINAL DATE M.O. was ordered to be detained on remand in his absence and a NORP warrant for his arrest was issued . In DATE and in DATE the public prosecutor again contacted ORG in relation to the mentioned request for legal assistance . At the time of the latter contact , ORG had upheld the decision on detention on remand and , as a consequence , an international warrant for ORG arrest was issued . The prosecutor also asked ORG to examine the possibilities of having GPE extradited from GPE . The efforts to get legal assistance from the NORP authorities continued . In DATE there was a further contact between the prosecutor and ORG concerning both the request for legal assistance and the extradition issue . At about this time , a NORP liaison officer temporarily staying in GPE and an employee of ORG had paid a visit to some high - ranking NORP police officers and had raised the problem of receiving legal assistance from GPE . The outcome of this meeting was considered positive and it was hoped that the requested information would arrive within DATE or CARDINAL . Apparently , however , this did not happen . On DATE ORG reported that the local police authorities were waiting for permission from ORG to put questions to the NORP bank . DATE , it submitted information from ORG in GPE , according to which ORG had moved and his new address was unknown . In addition to the above - mentioned measures , the NORP police was continuously searching for GPE , having received indications on several occasions that he would come to GPE .

On DATE ORG decided to terminate the criminal proceedings in cases A and B on the ground that it could not be proved that a crime had been committed . The applicant was informed thereof on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) , examining a complaint made by the applicant , concluded that there was nothing calling for further action and therefore decided not to make any inquiries in the matter .

On DATE the Chancellor of Justice ( NORP ) , in reply to a request for damages made by the applicant , decided that there was no reason to assume that a crime had been committed by any public official and the applicant was therefore not entitled to damages . His request was consequently rejected .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant was injured in a car accident . The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

At an undetermined time in DATE , the judge presiding the case was appointed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) and the case was transferred to a new judge .

DATE and DATE he made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings the court appointed CARDINAL medical experts and a road traffic expert . The court once replaced the designated road traffic expert with a new one .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court requested the first - instance court to correct its judgment in the part concerning the penalty interests .

On DATE the first - instance court corrected its judgment .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s appeals , allowed the ORG ’s appeal in part and lowered the damages awarded .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) .

The proceedings are still pending .


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

GPE , a construction company , was the owner of an apartment in GPE , which it had let to GPE

In a registered letter of DATE , it informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on DATE and asked him to vacate the LOC by DATE .

In DATE GPE served a notice to quit ( disdetta ) on the tenant , but he refused to leave .

In a writ served on the tenant in DATE , GPE reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the GPE magistrate ( pretore ) .

On DATE the magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by DATE . That decision was made enforceable on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE GPE served notice ( precetto ) on the tenant requiring him to vacate the LOC . On DATE it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff ( significazione di sfratto ) on DATE . The bailiff made several unsuccessful attempts to enforce the order ( on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and QUANTITY DATE ) .

PERSON became the owner of the apartment in DATE following a corporate merger with , inter alia , GPE It pursued the enforcement proceedings .

DATE and DATE the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession ( on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as , under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions , the applicant company was not entitled to police assistance .

By DATE , when PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE came into force providing for the staggering of the enforcement of orders for possession , requests for police assistance had been made to ORG in CARDINAL cases : CARDINAL for arrears of rent , CARDINAL because the owner required the LOC for his own use , CARDINAL for other reasons , and CARDINAL ( the applicant company ’s case included ) because the lease had expired .

The ORG decreed on DATE and DATE that decisions on the provision of police assistance would be taken by reference to the criteria laid down in PERSON no . CARDINAL , namely the order of priority established by the legislature , the date of the request for assistance , any special features of the individual case and the requirement that PERCENT of the total number of orders for possession outstanding should be enforced DATE .

In reply to a question from the ORG , counsel for the applicant company informed ORG on DATE that the apartment had been repossessed on DATE , following the death of the tenant .

Since DATE the public authorities in GPE have frequently intervened in residential tenancy legislation with the aim of controlling rents . This has been achieved by rent freezes ( occasionally relaxed when the government decreed statutory increases ) , by the statutory extension of all current leases and by the postponement , suspension or staggering of the enforcement of orders for possession .

The last statutory extension to all but a small number of specifically excepted categories of subsisting leases was introduced by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) and was effective until DATE , DATE or DATE , depending on the date of signature of the lease .

NORP Under LAW of LAW no . CARDINAL , it is for the magistrate to fix the date for enforcement of the order for possession , having regard to both the tenant and the landlord ’s circumstances and the grounds on which the lease was terminated . Enforcement can not be deferred for CARDINAL , or DATE .

If the tenant fails to vacate the LOC within the time allowed by the magistrate the landlord may issue enforcement proceedings .

Orders are made enforceable by the appending of an instruction by the magistrate “ to any bailiff whose services are requested , any person empowered to enforce the order , ORG , and any police officer to ORG assist in the enforcement of this order when required by law ” .

By Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , the bailiff ’s task is to enjoin the tenant to vacate the LOC and he may to that end seek police assistance “ whenever necessary ” . The bailiff reinstates the owner in his property and returns the keys to him .

The police act as officers of the court .

Numerous provisions have established rules for the suspension of the enforcement of orders for possession ( ordinanze di sfratto ) .

A first suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE . Those provisions were incorporated in Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . PERSON and covered the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . That legislation also provided for the staggered resumption of evictions on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE , depending on when the decision that the lease had been terminated became enforceable .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL laid down that enforcement would not be suspended if repossession had been ordered on the grounds of rent arrears . Similarly , no suspension could be ordered in certain cases , for example where the landlord required the property for his own use or for the use of his spouse , children or ascendants ( LAW , first sub - paragraph , number QUANTITY , of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( “ LAW no . CARDINAL ” ) ) .

A second suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) . It covered the period from DATE and included the same exceptions as the preceding legislation .

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL also established that the prefect , after consulting a committee that included representatives of both tenants and landlords ( commissione provinciale ) , was responsible for determining the criteria for authorising police assistance in evicting tenants who refused to surrender possession .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL bis ) of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL also provided that the eviction of any tenant entitled to subsidised housing was in all cases suspended until DATE .

A third suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . It initially covered the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , which was subsequently extended until DATE .

A fourth suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) , and covered the period up to DATE .

All the aforementioned laws and decrees contained additional provisions relating to the financing of subsidised housing and to housing benefits .

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL also provided that as from CARDINAL DATE requests for police assistance in enforcing orders for possession would be dealt with in order of priority , as determined according to criteria established by the prefects after consultation with statutory prefectoral committees , whose members included the prefect , the mayor and representatives of both tenants and landlords . Among the cases having priority were those in which it was not possible for enforcement to be suspended . In particular , priority was given to landlords urgently requiring premises as accommodation for themselves , their spouse , children or ascendants . Landlords seeking priority treatment were required to make a statutory declaration .

As regards evictions in all other cases , provision was made for police assistance to be staggered over a maximum of DATE from DATE .

The system whereby the enforcement of orders for possession was to be staggered was extended by a series of legislative decrees including the following : from DATE to DATE ( Legislative Decree no . DATE ) ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ; from DATE to DATE ( Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL ) ; from DATE to DATE ( Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL ) ; and from then to DATE ( Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ratified a series of legislative decrees that had not been enacted as laws . It provided that police assistance would be staggered until DATE .

That arrangement was extended until DATE by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL . In addition , LAW of that legislative decree added to the ORG existing power to lay down general criteria for determining whether police assistance would be made available the power to decide precisely when and how police resources would be allocated in each individual case , without having to deal with requests for police assistance in the chronological order in which they were made by the bailiffs . Consequently , the prefectoral committees would usually only be able to express an opinion on the general criteria to be followed in determining whether police assistance was to be given , not on whether assistance should in fact be given in a particular case .

By Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL the date for the resumption of evictions was postponed to DATE .

In a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) of DATE , ORG held that LAW no . CARDINAL was contrary to LAW guaranteeing inter alia the right of access to a court , as it made the decision regarding the date of enforcement of an order for possession – which is set in advance by the magistrate in accordance with LAW no . DATE subject to review by a prefect . ORG said that the role of the prefects should be limited to cooperating DATE as officers of the court – in the enforcement of judicial orders for possession . The fact that their powers had been enlarged to include individual cases had led to substantial delays in the enforcement of court orders . That was contrary to every individual ’s entitlement to have his rights decided by a court . ORG stressed that it was unacceptable for court orders to be undermined or affected by administrative decisions .

Recently , Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE delayed the resumption of evictions to CARDINAL DATE .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on the rules governing lease agreements and the vacation of residential LOC provides that where an order for possession has already been made and is enforceable when that law comes into force , the landlord and tenant have DATE during which period enforcement of the order is suspended – in which to decide whether to enter into a new lease . Should no agreement be forthcoming within that period , the tenant may , within DATE thereafter , request a magistrate to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order . The magistrate ’s decision regarding the date of enforcement incorporates permission for the bailiff to seek police assistance to enforce the order .

The date of eviction may be deferred for up to a maximum of DATE if the tenant is aged DATE or over , if he has CARDINAL or more dependent children , if he is on the list of transferable personnel ( liste di mobilità ) kept by businesses , if he is in receipt of unemployment benefit or low - paid - worker benefit , if he has been formally allocated welfare housing , if he has purchased a house that is under construction or if he owns property in respect of which repossession proceedings are pending . The same rule applies if the tenant or a member of his family who has been living with him for DATE is handicapped or terminally ill .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , in GPE .

On DATE the applicant had a car accident in which GPE , a passenger of his car , died as a result of injuries , and ORG , another passenger , suffered serious injuries . Apparently on DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of causing a traffic accident occasioning death and serious bodily harm .

On DATE the first hearing was held before the FAC Lubelski ORG in these proceedings . Subsequently the court held CARDINAL further hearings . At DATE , on DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of causing a traffic accident occasioning death and serious bodily harm . The court heard CARDINAL witnesses , including PERSON , persons who had immediately arrived at the scene of the accident and had taken the applicant and other victims out of the car .

The court established that on the critical date the applicant , while driving his car , had met GPE and GPE They had intended to spend some time in a beer bar in C. As the bar had been closed , the applicant had proposed to see his friend PERSON , but , as he had no alcoholic beverages at home , the applicant and PERSON had gone to a shop in PERSON They had drunk some vodka , and later an unspecified amount of beer , first at FAC place and later in a shop in C. On their way back home the applicant had stopped to pick up ORG Shortly afterwards the applicant had lost control of the car , driven off the road into a ditch alongside it , and there hit a concrete water pipe . As a result of the crash , GPE suffered grave injuries and subsequently died . ORG also suffered serious injuries , including a brain concussion . The court further observed that TIME after the accident , the applicant had a blood test taken , which showed that he had CARDINAL pro thousand alcohol in his blood . The court further considered that the applicant ’s arguments according to which it had not been him who had been driving , but ORG , amounted only to an inept attempt of burdening the victim with the responsibility for the accident , which did not find support in any other evidence . In particular , the testimony of persons who had taken the injured passengers out of the badly damaged car , clearly indicated that the applicant had been in the driver ’s seat . Their testimony was logical and corresponded to each other . In establishing the facts the court further had regard to an expert opinion of ORG , a physician , and to a further expert report of GPE , a specialist in traffic problems . The court also took into consideration a medico - psychiatric report on the applicant as well as a report of a psychologist .

The court sentenced the applicant to DATE of imprisonment . The enforcement of the sentence was stayed for DATE of probation . The court considered that the applicant ’s personality and the fact that he did not have any criminal record militated for the staying of the enforcement of the sentence . He had also shown contrition proportionate to the tragic consequences of his offence . The court further observed that a significant factor which had bearing on its position as regards the staying of the sentence was the fact that the applicant had CARDINAL dependants : CARDINAL children and a wife who had serious mobility problems . Thus , the societal aims of the sentence would be best served if the enforcement of the prison sentence was stayed . The court also imposed on the applicant a fine of CARDINAL ( old ) NORP zlotys , and forbade him to drive for DATE .

Both the prosecutor and the applicant lodged appeals against this judgment . At the hearing held on DATE , ORG quashed the part of the judgment staying the enforcement of the sentence . This judgment subsequently became final .

On DATE ORG reopened the proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the second - instance court had considered the appeals against the judgment of DATE despite the fact that the applicant ’s lawyer had not attended the hearing held before ORG on DATE , whereas his presence would have been necessary in order to ensure an effective defence of the applicant ’s procedural rights . The court also ordered the case to be reconsidered by ORG .

On DATE ORG reconsidered the prosecutor ’s and the applicant’ s appeal against the judgment of DATE . The court quashed the part of the judgment by which the prison sentence had been stayed and that relating to imposition of the fine . The remainder of the judgment was upheld .

The applicant ’s lawyer lodged with ORG a cassation appeal to ORG against this judgment , arguing in particular that the first - instance court had failed to give convincing grounds for its judgment , in particular by failing to adduce circumstances which had led it to a de facto increase in the sentence by quashing the part staying its enforcement for DATE . On DATE ORG declared the cassation appeal admissible .

On DATE ORG lodged its pleadings in the cassation proceedings with ORG , submitting that the applicant ’s argument according to which ORG had failed to sufficiently justify this part of the decision by which the staying of the sentence had been quashed , was well - founded . However , this could not in itself be regarded as a sufficient ground for the quashing of the contested judgment by way of a cassation judgment , as this shortcoming did not amount to a flagrant breach of procedural provisions of LAW , justifying that the judgment be quashed by ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged additional pleadings with ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG of DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration .

On DATE ORG , having reconsidered the case , quashed the part of the first - instance judgment by which the court stayed the enforcement of the sentence . It upheld the remainder of the judgment .

The applicant filed again a cassation appeal against this judgment with ORG . He submitted that the first - instance court had been in flagrant breach of law in that it had refused to call a specialised institute in order to give a comprehensive forensic expert opinion , such as to include both medical aspects of the case and considerations of specialists in traffic problems , in order to reconstruct the course of material events and establish the facts of the case . It was further stated that the court had relied on an opinion of an expert in traffic issues which was incomplete , as shown by the fact that its author had indicated that an expert report should be submitted to the court in order to assess the exact degree of the applicant ’s drunkenness at the material time . ORG

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal considering it unfounded . The court stressed that the applicant ’s request to have a further expert opinion prepared had been in fact aiming at having the facts of the case established , and at having them assessed by an expert , whereas this was a cardinal duty of the court in criminal proceedings . It was not for any expert to take the place of the court in this respect . As regards the complaint that the expert opinion relied on by the court had been incomplete , ORG considered that it had contained a detailed analysis of circumstances which had led the expert to the conclusion that the applicant had been driving the car at the time of the accident , and that the applicant had not advanced any arguments capable of effectively calling these conclusions into question . As to the assessment of the applicant ’s inebriated state , it was true that the expert had stated that his conclusions had been rather an estimate . However , the applicant ’s state had also been established on the basis of the blood test taken TIME after the accident , which permitted a conclusion that his alcohol intake had been higher than permitted by law . As regards this part of the cassation appeal which called into question the reasonableness of the assessment of evidence given by witnesses PERSON and PERSON , it was not for the cassation court to assess the ability of the witnesses to reconstruct the material events . This was a task of the first - instance court which had had direct contact with the witnesses and had been in the best position to appreciate their submissions . The first - instance court had done so , and the appellate court had accepted its conclusions . In the light thereof , ORG found no grounds , which would cast doubt on their correctness .

On DATE ORG dismissed the motion to reopen the proceedings , considering that the applicant ’s allegations that witnesses PERSON and PERSON suffered from alleged psychiatric ailments sufficient to call into question their abilities of perception did not constitute a ground justifying the reopening of the proceedings , as defined by law .


McGILLEN and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The applicant is a NORP national who was born on DATE and who lives in GPE - on - Trent . He is not represented before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG .

The applicant was widowed on DATE . There were CARDINAL children of the marriage , born on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In DATE the applicant applied for widow ’s benefits and was refused . On DATE he applied to ORG for benefits equivalent to those which would have been received by a widow . He was finally refused such benefits by ORG on DATE

The applicant is a NORP national who was born on DATE and who lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Messrs Royds Treadwell , solicitors practising in GPE . The Government are again represented by PERSON .

The applicant was widowed on DATE . There were CARDINAL children of the marriage , born on CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE he made a formal application to ORG for survivors’ benefits . On DATE , it was determined that he was not entitled because he had no dependent children .

The applicant is a NORP national who was born on DATE and who lives in GPE . He is represented before ORG by ORG , solicitors . The ORG are again represented by PERSON .

The applicant was widowed on DATE . In DATE he made an application for survivors’ benefits , which was refused in DATE . The applicant continued to pursue a domestic remedy and was included in the schedule of widowers who took the benefit of the decision in NORP v. Secretary of ORG ex parte PERSON and others [ DATE ] UKHL CARDINAL , which was decided by ORG on DATE .

The applicant is a NORP national who was born on DATE and who lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON . The Government are again represented by Mr C. Whomersley .

The applicant was widowed in DATE , when he was DATE . There were CARDINAL children of the marriage , born on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Shortly after his wife ’s death he asked ORG if he was entitled to benefits equivalent to those received by widows , but he was informed that he was not eligible because he was a man .

On DATE the applicant made a formal application for widows’ benefits , to be backdated to the time of his wife ’s death . The claim was finally refused by ORG on DATE .

The domestic law relevant to these applications is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV .


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Yemen);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Yemen)

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The first applicant is born in DATE , the second applicant is her oldest daughter , born in DATE , the third and fourth applicants are her sons , born in DATE and DATE , and the fifth and sixth applicants are her youngest daughters , born in DATE and DATE . They are currently in GPE .

On DATE the first and fifth applicants arrived in GPE and , DATE , they applied for asylum and residence permits . The second , third , fourth and sixth applicants arrived in GPE on DATE and applied for asylum and residence permits on DATE . ORG ( Migrationsverket ) held CARDINAL interviews with the first applicant and CARDINAL interviews with the fifth applicant . The applicants’ legal representative was present at the third interview with the first applicant and at the second interview with the fifth applicant . The legal representative also submitted written submissions to the ORG concerning all of the applicants .

During the CARDINAL interviews held by ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE , the first applicant essentially told ORG the following . She was from NORP in GPE where she had lived with her husband , X , and their CARDINAL children . She and PERSON came from the same clan and he worked in industry . In her view , they had been poor . Her mother , CARDINAL brother and CARDINAL sisters lived in GPE and another brother lived in GPE . Her father was deceased . She had travelled with the fifth applicant to GPE , via GPE , using their passports and with NORP visas . She had thrown the passports away upon arrival in GPE for fear of being sent back . They had paid MONEY ( ORG ) for their tickets and MONEY for the visas . She had paid for this by selling gold that she owned . A friend of hers had helped to obtain the visas from ORG in GPE in DATE . Her brother had obtained their passports without PERSON ’s knowledge . The second , third , fourth and sixth applicants had travelled to GPE illegally with the help of smugglers .

The first applicant claimed that her biggest problem was X who had abused her for DATE . They had married when she was DATE and he had been very strict and had hit her , burnt her and threatened her with a knife . She had back problems caused by the violence and had received an injection at a hospital in GPE DATE before leaving the country to alleviate the back pain caused by a slipped disc . She had tried to obtain a divorce but the judge at the court had told her that she should solve her private problems with her husband . She had not contacted a lawyer as she had no money and she had not reported the violence to the police because they did not interfere in family matters .

NORP However , the first applicant alleged that the main reason for leaving GPE had been to protect her daughters . The second applicant had been forced to marry an older man when she was DATE and forced to leave school because of it . X had also planned to marry off the fifth applicant to a much older man when she was DATE . The first applicant had petitioned the courts to stop the marriage but the courts had decided that PERSON , as the head of the family , was entitled to make that decision . She claimed that women had no freedom in GPE and that X would kill her if she were returned since she had dishonoured him by leaving the country with their daughter and without his permission . No one would be able to protect her and her daughter .

The fifth applicant supported her mother ’s claims , stating that X had wanted to marry her off to an older man against her will . The court case to stop the marriage had taken DATE and the outcome had favoured X for which reason she and the first applicant had left the country . Her uncle had helped them to obtain travel documents so they could leave the country legally . She also stated that PERSON had worked at a ministry and that he had been very strict with her and her mother .

The second applicant also supported her mother ’s claims and submitted that PERSON had married her off , at the age of DATE , to a much older man who had CARDINAL children and a disabled first wife . He had treated the second applicant like a servant but had agreed to divorce her if he was reimbursed the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL that he had paid as a dowry for her to X. After her mother and sister had left the country , the second applicant alleged that X had made her other siblings leave the house but that they had been able to stay with a friend of hers until they could travel to GPE . She submitted that , if they were to return to GPE , they would all risk being killed since they had dishonoured X. She also risked being killed by her husband since she had left him without his permission .

In a later submission , the second applicant added that X would never allow her to return home even if she did obtain a divorce from her husband . Moreover , when PERSON had made her siblings leave their home , she had exceptionally been allowed by her husband to house them .

On DATE ORG rejected the applications . It first noted that the applicants had not submitted their passports or any other documents to prove their identity or to support their story . It then observed that GPE is a tribal society dominated by a patriarchal social order where women are subject to discriminating treatment and where they have to obey their husbands . Turning to the applicants’ personal situation , the ORG first pointed out that the first applicant ’s brother had failed according to the “ honour rules ” by helping her to obtain a passport . Moreover , it considered that the mere fact that the first applicant had left the country , and by doing so allegedly dishonoured her husband , was not sufficient to create a need for protection in GPE . In this respect , the ORG observed that the first applicant ’s clan could protect her against X. Concerning the fifth applicant , ORG considered that ORG actions had been motivated by financial gain and that , by paying the necessary sum to X , the fifth applicant could solve any problems that might arise . Here , it noted that the applicants’ contention that they were poor was contradicted by the fact that they had been able to afford to travel to GPE since the cost of the journey would have been a fortune to a poor person . Turning to the second applicant , ORG observed that her husband had consented to divorce her if she reimbursed him the sum he had originally paid X. Again , ORG considered that the problem was mainly a financial matter which could be solved by paying the required amount . In regard to the remaining applicants , the ORG found that they would be able to stay with their maternal grandparents or other relatives in the clan .

Thus , ORG concluded that the family ’s problems were related to financial matters rather than to honour and , consequently , they could not be considered refugees or otherwise in need of protection in GPE . Since the situation in GPE was not such as to call for an automatic grant of residence permits , the applicants’ requests were rejected . In reaching this conclusion , ORG had regard to the fact that some of the applicants were minors .

The applicants appealed against the decision to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining their claims and adding that they had disgraced the head of their family as well as the clan by fleeing . Since they were members of the same clan as X and , since the clan always took the side of the man , it would not protect them . On the contrary , the clan , which was very large and powerful , had blacklisted them and they were convinced that the clan would kill them to save its honour . Moreover , the first applicant ’s brother had helped them in secret and had risked his own life by doing so . He would not be able to help them again . According to the applicants , there was no one in GPE who would be able to protect them . Furthermore , the applicants insisted that their need for protection was honour - related and not economic in nature . The second and fifth applicants did not have the money necessary to buy their freedom and , in any event , nothing would hinder X from marrying them off to someone else later on . The first applicant added that she had been a member of a women ’s association which had met on DATE and that she had told the women in the association about her problems and they had lent her some money to pay for travel . The remainder of the cost , she had paid by selling her jewellery . As concerned the other applicants , the second applicant had helped to pay for that trip .

In support of their claims , the applicants submitted an e - mail , dated DATE , and sent by a programme officer for “ Sisters of Arab Forum for Human Rights ” . It stated that , if the applicants were sent back to GPE , their lives would be in danger since the first and fifth applicants had disgraced their husband / father when they had run away instead of accepting his decision that the fifth applicant marry the man X had chosen for her . It further stated that honour crimes were common in GPE and that NORP law encouraged it ; for example , a man who killed his wife because of infidelity would only be sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

They also submitted a copy of a police report , dated DATE , from which it appeared that X had reported to ORG that the third and fourth applicants had stolen CARDINAL NORP rial ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) from him . He stated in the report that he had hidden the money in his wardrobe DATE previously and had discovered that it had gone DATE before . He had asked his wife about it but she had not known anything and thus he suspected that his CARDINAL sons had stolen the money since they had been out a lot lately . The sons had now run away from home and he wanted them arrested . It appeared from the report that a regional arrest warrant had been issued for the third and fourth applicants . The applicants claimed that this was a method for X to get the authorities’ help to locate the family in order for him to have his revenge . They had received the report from the first applicant ’s brother , who had heard about it and requested a copy from ORG . He had received a copy since he was the PERSON uncle .

Lastly , the applicants submitted the children ’s birth certificates in original which their uncle had also acquired and sent to them .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeal . The court first observed that the general situation for women in GPE was not a sufficient ground for them to be granted refugee status . An individual assessment had to be made in each case . It then observed that the reasons referred to by the applicants in support of their need for protection mainly concerned problems within the personal sphere caused , inter alia , by the country ’s traditions . The court further noted that , other than the first applicant ’s petition to a court to stop the fifth applicant ’s marriage , the applicants had not turned to the NORP authorities to obtain protection against NORP or the second applicant ’s husband . The court reiterated that , before international protection could be considered for problems of violence and reprisals within the family , all avenues of mediation and protection by the national authorities should have been tried . With regard to X ’s police report against the third and fourth applicants , the court considered that it would be no problem for them to prove that they were innocent since they were in GPE at the time of the alleged crime . Therefore , they did not risk being arrested or imprisoned . The court concluded that the applicants could not be considered refugees , that they were not in need of protection and that there were no exceptional circumstances to grant them leave to remain in GPE , even though some of them were still minors . In reaching this conclusion , the court also had regard to the fact that the family was united , that several of them were adults and that they had family and friends in GPE who supported them .

On DATE , with CARDINAL of the judges being of a dissenting opinion , the majority of ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal . This decision was final and the deportation order thus became enforceable .

NORP However , in DATE , the applicants lodged an application with ORG to stay the enforcement of the deportation order and to reconsider their case due to new circumstances . They maintained their previous claims and submitted a copy of a document in LANGUAGE that they claimed was a copy of a summons , dated DATE , and which had been issued by a NORP court . According to the applicants , it stated that the first applicant had taken her and LAW ’s CARDINAL children and had moved to GPE , following a dispute between her and X regarding whether or not the fifth applicant should be married to an older man . According to the document , PERSON requested the court to order the return of the applicants to GPE so that the children would be with their father and to imprison the first applicant because she had disobeyed her husband and to stop her from leaving GPE again . Moreover , PERSON requested the court to decide that the fifth applicant should marry the man that he had chosen . The applicants contended that this , together with the other information in the case , showed clear discrimination against women and that there could be no doubt that , should they be returned to GPE , they would be subjected to persecution because they had dishonoured the head of the family .

On DATE ORG rejected the new application and decided that the measures to enforce the deportation order should continue . ORG found that the grounds invoked by the applicants had already been examined earlier in all essential parts and that no new circumstances had been presented which could lead to a stay of the enforcement of the deportation order . Furthermore , it considered that the applicants had invoked no other new circumstances which could lead to granting them residence permits in GPE .

The applicants appealed against the decision to ORG , insisting that the evidence showed that inhuman treatment awaited them if they were returned to GPE . However , on DATE , the court upheld the ORG ’s decision and reasoning in full and rejected the appeal .

Upon further appeal , ORG , on DATE , refused leave to appeal

On DATE , upon request by the applicants , the ORG applied Rule CARDINAL of ORG until further notice . On DATE and on the basis of the ORG ’s request , ORG stayed the enforcement of the deportation order until further notice .

The basic provisions mainly applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE hereafter referred to as “ the Aliens Act ” ) , as amended on DATE . The following refers to LAW in force at the relevant time .

LAW , of LAW stipulates that an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE . According to LAW , LAW , of LAW , the term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

NORP Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , such a permit may be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen ömmande omständigheter ) to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

As regards the enforcement of a deportation or expulsion order , account has to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW , of LAW ) . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This applies , under LAW , LAW , of LAW , where new circumstances have emerged that mean there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced . If a residence permit can not be granted under this provision , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not doing so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

Under LAW , matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances ; ORG , ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW , and LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

On DATE the Head of ORG issued an instruction concerning the enforcement of deportation orders to GPE . He noted that the already unstable situation in GPE had rapidly deteriorated due to protests against the regime and that there was increased violence from various groups , including by government forces . Having regard to the difficulties in evaluating the situation in the country and how it would develop , the Head of ORG considered that no deportation orders to GPE should be enforced until further notice .

A second instruction was issued on DATE by the Head of ORG in which he considered the developments in GPE since the issuance of the first instruction . He first noted that the security situation in GPE was affected by a number of internal conflicts , such as conflicts between clans , between the regime and various clan militias in the north and the south of the country as well as the regime fighting ORG in LOC ( AQAP ) . These conflicts had been accentuated by the growing protests and opposition against the regime by civil society , weakening the central government and its control over the country . During the autumn of DATE , in particular , there had been violent clashes in the bigger cities of GPE and PERSON . Following the agreement brokered by ORG and sanctioned by ORG , where President PERSON agreed to hand over power to Vice - President PERSON , the situation in GPE continued to be marked by political unrest , an unstable security situation and continued internal conflicts . However , the country - wide protests had diminished in intensity and no longer paralysed the big cities of GPE and PERSON . Thus , the general security situation in GPE and other big cities had improved . In view of this , the Head of ORG found that the situation in the country was generally very serious but that the violence was not so serious or indiscriminate as to give well - founded grounds to assume that civilians , through their mere presence in the parts of the provinces where the violence occurred , were at a real risk of being exposed to serious and personal threats to life or limb .

In conclusion , the Head of ORG noted that GPE was still marked by major political instability and occasionally armed fighting between various entities in essentially all parts of the country . The Government had little if any power in certain parts of the country and the judicial system could currently not be considered to be capable of impartially protecting the population ’s basic rights . In these circumstances , he considered that there were severe conflicts ( svåra motsättningar ) within the meaning of LAW in all of GPE . It was important to point out that the severe conflicts , and consequently the security situation , were more serious in some parts of the country than in others and that this had to be taken into account in each individual case . He further noted that vulnerable groups in GPE , such as women and children , should be given special attention when their need for protection was considered . Through this instruction , the first instruction was repealed and thereby the stay on deportation orders was also ended .

ORG Travel Advice for GPE , as updated on DATE , sets out the following about the political situation in GPE :

“ Following the signing on DATE of ORG Initiative by President PERSON , political transition in GPE is now underway . Much progress has since been achieved with the appointment of a new prime minister , a ORG comprising ministers from the former ruling party and opposition , and approval by parliament of the government ’s programme . Interim presidential elections were held on DATE and President PERSON was inaugurated on DATE as GPE ’s new head of state . The second phase of transition has now begun , leading to greater participation in the political process by all NORP , constitutional reform and parliamentary elections . The situation remains uncertain in GPE , with some seeking to disrupt the new political process and others dissatisfied with the pace of change . GPE faces tough political , humanitarian and economic challenges . Violent clashes continue across GPE , particularly in GPE and PERSON . The long period of political impasse in DATE has resulted in the withdrawing of effective state control over parts of the country , especially in the north in GPE and the south in PERSON . Dialogue is ongoing to achieve political transition and the situation remains extremely tense . ”

The volatile and tense situation in GPE , as set out above by the Head of ORG and ORG , is reflected and supported by other international sources , such as ORG .

ORG “ DATE ORG : GPE ” , of DATE , states among other things :

“ Women

The law , rarely enforced , provides women with protection against violence , but there were no laws specifically prohibiting domestic violence , including spousal abuse . Although spousal abuse occurred , it generally was undocumented . Violence against women and children was considered a family affair and usually went unreported to police . Due to social norms and customs , an abused woman was expected to take her complaint to a male relative ( rather than to authorities ) to intercede on her behalf or provide sanctuary to avoid publicizing the abuse and shaming the family ... The law criminalizes rape , although spousal rape is not criminalized because a woman may not refuse sexual relations with her husband ... The law does not address other types of honour crimes , including beatings , forced isolation , imprisonment , and forced early marriage . The law regarding violence against women states a convicted man should be executed for killing a woman ... Social custom and local interpretation of Shari’a discriminated significantly against women ... Men were permitted to take CARDINAL wives . A husband may divorce a wife without justifying the action in court . Under the formal court system , a woman has the legal right to divorce , but she must provide a justification , and there were practical , social , and financial considerations that impeded women from obtaining a divorce . However , in some regions under tribal customary law , a woman has the right to divorce without justification ... Women also faced discrimination in courts , where the testimony of CARDINAL man equals that of CARDINAL women ... Governmental mechanisms to enforce equal protection were weak or nonexistent . According to ORG ) , there were CARDINAL NGOs working for women ’s advancement . The Arab Sisters Forum for Human Rights worked with other NGOs , the government , and donor countries to strengthen women ’s political participation . ORG Women ’s Union and ORG ( ORG ) conducted workshops on women ’s rights . ORG , with funding from the GPE and in cooperation with the ORG , established projects aimed at providing protection against violence for women and children .

Children

The law does not define or prohibit child abuse , and there was no reliable data on its extent . Child marriage was a significant problem in the country . There was no minimum age of marriage , and girls were married as young as DATE . A DATE law setting the minimum age for marriage at DATE was repealed . According to a DATE ORG study , CARDINAL of all girls were married before they were DATE . The law has a provision that forbids sex with underage brides until they are " suitable for sexual intercourse , " an age that is undefined . An ORG study calculated that among CARDINAL couples , PERCENT of women and PERCENT of men were married at an early age . The report also highlighted that DATE was generally considered the appropriate age of marriage for girls , depending on region and socioeconomic status . ”

NORP The ORG report “ GPE ’s Dark Side - Discrimination against Women and Girls ” , of DATE , and the ORG report “ How Come You Allow Little Girls to Get Married ? PERSON in GPE ” , of DATE , support the abovementioned findings concerning women and children by ORG .

The Human Rights Watch report further states that :

“ The provisions in GPE ’s Personal Status Law on marriage and divorce create particular hardships for women and girls . ... A man may divorce his wife by pronouncing his repudiation CARDINAL times . A woman may ask for separation from her husband on certain conditions , for example if the husband fails to provide financially for his family even though he is capable of doing so ; if he abandons his wife for DATE with no compensation , or for DATE with compensation ; if he is imprisoned for DATE ; or if he marries CARDINAL woman and is unable to provide financially for his wives . The wife must provide proof of these allegations before being granted a divorce . A wife who wishes to divorce her husband for other reasons may file for khul’a , or no - fault divorce , under which she is required to pay back her dowry and forego claims to maintenance . Given women ’s economic dependence on their husbands , this requirement makes it difficult for women to seek and obtain a divorce . ”

The Country of Origin Information Centre ( Landinfo ) , an independent human rights research body set up to provide the NORP immigration authorities with relevant information has , in a note concerning marriage in GPE dated DATE , observed that , according to ORG DATE , as amended in DATE and DATE , there is no requirement that a bride be physically present when she is married . It is enough that her guardian agrees and shows his identity card or family book . Moreover , it notes that the mother of the bride has no legal authority to decide about her daughter ’s marriage , since she is also under the authority of her husband and has to follow his decisions . The note further states that DATE there are girls who flee their forced marriages and seek refuge with NGOs and human rights activists . In this respect , it observes that NGOs run a few shelters in GPE and CARDINAL in GPE where these girls and other women in vulnerable situations can receive protection , counselling and training in various skills .

Landinfo has in another note focusing on NORP women ’s possibilities to support themselves , dated DATE , observed that it is not acceptable for a NORP woman to live alone without a family network . Although women , formally , have some civil and political rights , in reality , they are hindered from using them due to poverty and religious and cultural values . However , there are working women and they are to a certain extent visible on the work market . PERCENT of all university students are women and women are allowed to work within the health care and education system , as well as in the agricultural sector , private business or for NGOs .

The Freedom House ’s report “ Women ’s Rights in LOC and GPE CARDINAL- GPE ” , of DATE , sets out :

“ GPE is a tribal and traditional country where prevailing cultural attitudes , patriarchal structures , and NORP fundamentalism accord women low status in the family and community and limit their participation in society . ...

Women face additional difficulties obtaining justice because police stations and courts DATE which are always crowded with men – are commonly considered to be inappropriate places for " respected women " . Moreover , the lack of female judges , prosecutors , and lawyers discourages women from turning to the courts . Given the social discrimination experienced by women , they hesitate to approach male legal consultants , particularly for issues such as abuse or rape . Instead , women often rely on male relatives to go to court in their place , or turn to them to solve their problem rather than taking the matter to the judiciary .

Domestic violence in cases related to honor is a concealed phenomenon in GPE . Normally such cases are handled discreetly within the family and rarely reach police records . If the parties to the problem are not relatives , it is often resolved amicably through tribal mechanisms . Cases of honor - related homicide perpetrated against women are usually not reported , and no health certificate is required for a burial , particularly in rural areas . As a result , such deaths are often attributed to natural causes . ”

There have been some recent changes as observed by ORG in its report of DATE , cited above , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL :

“ Women played an important role in anti - Saleh protests , despite beatings , harassment , and , in some cases , the condemnation of relatives . President PERSON in DATE admonished women demonstrators , saying “ divine law does not allow ” public intermingling of the sexes . Women responded with further protests . In DATE , PERSON , a prominent woman journalist and human rights activist who has played a pivotal role in the protests , won the Nobel Peace Prize along with CARDINAL women leaders from GPE . In DATE , PERSON has defied conservatives in her political party ORG , or ORG , by calling for a minimum age for child marriage . ”

The important role played by women in the protests against ORG during DATE has also been highlighted by other sources , such as ORG and the media .

GPE is ORG to a number of international treaties and conventions that explicitly prohibit discrimination against women and protects the rights of women and children , such as LAW , the Convention on the Rights of the Child , ORG to Marriage , Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriage , LAW as well as LAW .

ORG DATE Report on GPE , cited above , states :

“ The law provides for freedom of movement within the country , foreign travel , emigration , and repatriation , and the government generally respected these rights with some restrictions . The government limited the movement of women , foreign tourists , and other foreigners ... According to the law , government officials required women to have the permission of a male relative before applying for a passport or leaving the country . A women ’s rights NGO asserted that a husband or a male relative could bar a woman from leaving the country and that authorities strictly enforced this requirement when women travelled with children . During DATE authorities reportedly turned back several women at the airport because they did not have the permission of a male relative . ”

Landinfo has in a thematic note of CARDINAL DATE concerning NORP travel and identity documents concluded that the notoriety of NORP documents was low , partly as a result of a weak central government , widespread corruption and incomplete registration procedures and archives . Thus , it was reported that it was easy to obtain forged documents through bribery or personal connections .

The note further stated that passports were issued and renewed by ORG . In order to get a passport , the applicant would have to present a valid identity card or family book as well as CARDINAL photographs and leave his or her fingerprints . For a woman to obtain a passport , she had to have the permission of her husband or , if she was unmarried , that of her father or other male relative . Children were normally registered in their GPE passport until DATE . However , if necessary , a child could get a passport if the child ’s birth certificate and the father ’s passport were submitted to the issuing authority . As concerned leaving the country , the note observed that there was different information available . According to ORG , a woman needed permission from her husband , or father if unmarried , to leave the country . However , ORG ( a NORP government - affiliated body working to empower women ) and a NORP lawyer had informed ORG that , once a married woman had obtained a passport , she did not need formal permission from her husband to leave the country .