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 usage 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 deportation decision from Migrationsverket, which 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 indicating 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.
Case reference
A.H. v Sweden, case no. 37753/24
Last update
3 April 2025
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.
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
Last update
8 March 2022
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 our client'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.
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 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.
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.
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).
Our firm
files a complaint before the UN Committee Against Torture
Case reference
S.B.M v Sweden, complaint 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, but 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 of granting him Swedish citizenship under a statutory waiver despite legal requirements for citizenship are not met.
We file a
request for priority for our client's application for Swedish citizenship
Last update
Our firm challenges the Swedish Migration Agency's assessment
Last update
16 November 2021
Our firm challenges the Swedish Migration Agency's decision to reject our client's citizenship application
Our firm filed an appeal on 26 July 2020 against the Swedish Migration Agency’s decision to deny our client's application under § 11 of the Citizenship Act (2001:82).
The Swedish Migration Agency alleged that our client has been active with an organisation that committed crimes against humanity. Conversely, our client had an active role in a deradicalization programme sponsored by a leading political group in Palestine. In light of this, our firm appealed to the court challenging the Swedish Migration Agency's assessment that our client was active in an organisation that committed crimes against humanity. We asked the court to either vacate the decision and grant our client Swedish citizenship.
Last update
Swedish citizenship is granted under special reason 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 had any valid residence permit, we invoked § 12 (2) of the
Citizenship Act (2001:82). We argued that her citizenship application should be approved
despite her lack of a permit to live in Sweden, due to special reasons (särskilda skäl) such as, inter alia, her husband works for a large Swedish multinational company in
the UK, and she has adapted to Swedish ways of life in other ways despite never
having lived permanently in Sweden. The Swedish Migration Agency ultimately
agrees with our argument and grants our client Swedish citizenship in 2022.
Last update
25 November 2022
Our firm files a complaint against the Swedish Migration Agency involving administrative misconduct
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.
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 the national authorities have infringed the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Last update
