Read more about our cases.
The best way to get a sense of a law firm is to review its past and present cases. Please find below brief summaries of some examples of cases that we have represented.
The European Court of Human Rights hears our client's medicinal cannabis case
On
20 November 2017, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled against
Andreas Thörn in the criminal case concerning the cultivation and use of medicinal cannabis in Sweden.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, our
firm took Andreas Thörn's case before the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg. We submitted, inter alia, that the respondent government has
failed to strike a fair balance between its mandate to combat illegal drug trade on
the one hand and our client's right to live his life without pain on the other. The Swedish government submitted its official observation to the European Court of Human Rights on 9 February 2021.
Case reference
Thörn v Sweden, case no. 24547/18
Dagens Juridik: https://www.dagensjuridik.se/nyheter/europadomstolen-ska-prova-svensk-cannabis-dom/
Dagens Nyheter: https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/europadomstolen-provar-svenskt-cannabisbeslut/
Tidningen Syre: https://tidningensyre.se/2020/15-juli-2020/svenskt-cannabisbeslut-far-provas-i-europadomstolen/
Örebro Nyheter: https://www.orebronyheter.com/hogsta-domstolens-beslut-om-cannabis-provas-i-europadomstolen/
Accent tidning: https://accentmagasin.se/narkotika/svenskt-cannabisfall-till-europadomstolen/
The European Court of Human Rights suspends our client's deportation to Sudan
Our client previously received a negative decision from Migrationsverket and was deported. The decision was upheld twice by the Migration Court and later by the Migration Court of Appeal. After exhausting all available legal remedies in Sweden, our client turned to us for assistance in bringing their case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
We petitioned the European Court of Human Rights to suspend our client's deportation, arguing
that Sweden would be in breach of its treaty obligations if the deportation
were enforced. The European Court has now delivered its decision, approving our
petition, and told the Swedish Government to instruct the Swedish Migration Agency to
immediately stop our client's deportation.
On 5 February 2025, the Swedish Migration Agency suspended our client's deportation.
On 28 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights communicated with the Government of Sweden regarding the alleged violations.
In June 2026, the Client received a residence permit in Sweden.
Case reference
A.H. v Sweden, case no. 37753/24
Last update
9 June 2026
The European Court of Human Rights stops our client's deportation to the Philippines
Our client, a 10-year-old boy with life-threatening health conditions,
came to Sweden from the Philippines with his father when he was 5 years old.
The father decided to divorce his Swedish partner as they were subjected to
physical violence at home.
Despite our client being able to escape the domestic violence, the Swedish Migration Agency decided to deport our client and his father as they no longer had any connection to Sweden. The Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal upheld the Swedish Migration Agency's decision to deport the family to the Philippines. We filed a request for urgent measures before the European Court of Human Rights as a last-resort attempt to stop the deportation.
On 28 August
2020, the European Court issued an interim measures decision asking the Swedish
government to finally stop our client's deportation.
On 11 June 2025, the Swedish Migration Agency granted residence permits for our client and his son.
Case reference
Nunez v Sweden, case no.
34474/20
News
articles
ETC Nyheter: https://www.etc.se/inrikes/europadomstolen-stoppar-utvisning-av-10-aring-med-svar-hjarnsjukdom
Falu Kuriren (2020-09-03): https://www.falukuriren.se/2020-09-03/svart-sjuke-jayram-fick-besked-om-utvisning-pa-sjukhuset--nu-stoppas-den-sa-lycklig
Nyaludvikatidning (2021-12-17): https://www.nyaludvikatidning.se/2021-12-17/svart-sjuke-jayram-11-hotas-av-utvisning--igen
Borlänge Tidning: https://www.borlangetidning.se/2025-06-20/mot-alla-odds-sjuke-jayram-far-stanna-i-sverige/
ETC Nyheter: https://www.etc.se/inrikes/svaart-sjuke-jayram-faar-stanna-i-sverige
Last update
11 June 2025
We represent our client in their discrimination claim before the European Court of Human Rights in relation to his family reunification process
Our firm alleges that the differential treatment between the two groups of people constitutes a violation of the European Convention. The case was subsequently communicated by the European Court of Human Rights to the Swedish government for an official reply on 1 December 2021.
Case reference
Mohammad v Sweden, case no. 12805/19
Last update
The Court stops a teenager's deportation to India
Our client arrived in Sweden as a child, accompanying her parent who had been granted a residence permit. As she grew older and reached adulthood during her time in Sweden, she could no longer be included as a co-applicant under her father’s case. Consequently, the Swedish Migration Agency deported her.
We were appointed as her legal counsel and appealed the deportation decision to the Migration Court. In our appeal, we argued, inter alia, that her personal connection to Sweden is strong, as evidenced by several factors raised during the court proceeding, and that her deportation would ultimately violate Sweden's international treaty obligations.
The Migration Court approved our appeal, overturned
the Swedish Migration Agency’s decision, and granted our client a residence
permit based on special circumstances.
0794-24
The Court stops a teenager's deportation to Venezuela
Our client arrived in Sweden as a minor from Venezuela together with his mother, who has since been granted a permanent residence permit. The Swedish Migration Agency argued that, now that the client had reached the age of 18, there was no longer any special dependency between him and his mother. Consequently, the Swedish Migration Agency decided to deport the client to Venezuela in May 2025.
The client transferred his representation from another law firm to Edelweiss Legal in June 2025, and we appealed the deportation decision to the Migration Court. In our appeal, we argued, among other things, that the client had spent his formative years in Sweden and had established strong ties to the country. After a year-long legal battle, the Migration Court allowed the appeal and overturned the Swedish Migration Agency’s decision.
1367-25
Acquiring customers through Uber and Bolt is not grounds for deportation
The Swedish Migration Agency decided in our client's case that his business did not satisfy the requirements for a residence permit as a self-employed person because a significant number of his customers were obtained through external platforms such as Uber and Bolt. As a result, the client's application was rejected, and a deportation order was issued.
We appealed the decision to the Migration Court, which has now ruled in our client's favour.
The Court held, among other things, that it had been established, on the balance of probabilities, that the client's business was operated independently and was not dependent on any other companies in a manner that would prevent it from being regarded as genuine self-employment. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the deportation order was set aside by the court in June 2026.
1386-25
The Swedish Migration Agency stops our client's deportation to Malaysia
Our clients, a Malaysian family, previously received a deportation order from the Swedish Migration Agency following unsuccessful asylum applications. Despite the fact that the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, we contended that there was a compelling reason for the children to remain in Sweden. Our argument was based on a reasonable assumption that their children would likely face discrimination in Malaysia due to their parents being in an interfaith relationship.
We substantiated our claim by
presenting previous domestic case laws that demonstrated a systematic
restriction of family rights for interfaith couples, as well as the
difficulties children face in acquiring citizenship if their parents are
interfaith couples.
In January 2024, after 2 years of
legal battles and with the support of Amnesty International, we successfully
obtained residence permits for the entire family under ch. 12 s. 18 of the
Aliens Act (2005:716), through the so-called VUT process.
The family is now living happily in Sweden.
0408-22
The Swedish Migration Agency stops our client's deportation to Cameroon
Our
client's work permit application extension was rejected because the Swedish
Migration Agency accused him of engaging in sham employment for the purpose of
acquiring a permit in Sweden. As evidence, the Swedish Migration Agency
presented information showing that he had several unexplained transactions in
his bank account, alleging that he had transferred the money back to his
employer.
We
denied the allegation and took the case to court. As counsel, we collected
first-hand witness testimonies and explained that the money was part of an
African traditional community-based financial practice called
"Njangi," where community members come together to assist a member
who is in the greatest need. Our client's transactions were simply proof that
he had been contributing to the Njangi practice.
In
June 2024, the court ruled in our client's favor, annulled his deportation, and
granted him a work permit.
0774-24
8 July 2024
The Swedish Migration Agency stops our client's deportation to Nigeria
Our client received a deportation decision to Nigeria following a failed asylum application. The decision had gained legal force before our intervention. On his behalf, we argued that his deportation was not reasonable, considering that separation is not in the best interest of his young child due to her age, as well as the lengthy family reunification processing time from Nigeria. This family connection should be deemed to constitute an extraordinary ground to stop the deportation within the meaning of ch. 12 s. 18 of the Aliens Act (2005:716).
The enforcement of our client's deportation was subsequently stopped, and a residence permit was granted under ch. 12 s. 18 of the Aliens Act (2005:716).
0329-22
The UN suspends our client's deportation to Afghanistan
As all domestic remedies had been exhausted, we decided to file a complaint before the UN in Geneva to suspend his deportation to Afghanistan.
Case reference
R.H. v Sweden, case no. 1284/2025
Last update
Our firm
files a complaint before the UN Committee Against Torture
Case reference
S.B.M v Sweden, case no. 1011/2020
Last update
Sweden grants citizenship to a renowned researcher under a special statute
Our client, a distinguished stem cells and cancer biology researcher originally from India, has been granted Swedish citizenship through a rare statutory exemption under § 12 of the Citizenship Act (2001:82).
We argued that although our client does not fulfil the habitual residency requirement for Swedish
citizenship, his expertise can significantly contribute to the advancement and
innovation of Sweden’s life sciences sector. Recognizing the unique value our
client offers to Sweden, we invoked a 1986 legal precedent (U 7204/85) granting Swedish citizenship in special circumstances for distinguished scientists within the
medical field.
In its ruling, the court instructed the Swedish Migration Agency
to prioritize our client’s case, which ultimately led to the positive decision to grant him Swedish citizenship under a statutory waiver despite legal requirements for citizenship not being met.
0864-24
We file a
request for priority for our client's application for Swedish citizenship
0052-19
Last update
Our firm challenges the Swedish Migration Agency's assessment that our client is a threat to national security
Case reference
Last update
16 November 2022
Swedish citizenship is granted under special reasons based on family ties
Our firm filed an application
for citizenship for an individual who, at the time of the filing, was living in
the UK and had never lived permanently in Sweden.
Given that our client neither resided in Sweden nor held a valid residence permit, we invoked Section 12, paragraph 2 of the Citizenship Act (2001:82). We argued that her application for Swedish citizenship should be granted despite her lack of lawful residence in Sweden, owing to special reasons (särskilda skäl), including, inter alia, the fact that her husband was employed by a leading Swedish–British multinational pharmaceutical company in the United Kingdom and that she had otherwise adapted to Swedish society and way of life despite never having resided permanently in Sweden. The Swedish Migration Agency ultimately accepted our arguments and granted our client Swedish citizenship in 2022, notwithstanding the fact that she did not reside in Sweden and did not have any permanent residence permit in Sweden.
Case reference
0086-20
Last update
25 November 2022
Our firm filed a complaint against the Swedish Migration Agency involving administrative misconduct
0039-19
Refugee status approved for our client from India
1493-25
Refugee status and permanent residence permit granted to our clients from Eritrea
0866-24
Our firm challenges the asset forfeiture claim by the Swedish Tax Agency and Sergel Finans AB
We represented a client whose property was seized by the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten) to pay for his family member's debts claimed by the Swedish Tax Agency and Sergel Finans AB.
On behalf of the client, we initiated legal action at the Vänersborg District Court to challenge the seizure and reclaim our client's property that had been unlawfully distrained by the Swedish Enforcement Authority. The court subsequently ruled in our favor, holding that the Swedish Enforcement Authority had no right to seize the property in question. Consequently, the property was returned to our client.
0238-21
Our firm files infringement proceedings before EU commission and Chancellor of Justice for our client whose personal data was amended without his consent
We also represented the client in the EU Commission infringement proceeding, alleging that the national authorities have infringed the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Case reference
0137-20
