Ont été entendus au cours de l'audience publique : - le rapport de Mme Siquier, - les conclusions de Mme Benzaid, rapporteure publique, - les observations de Me Le Franc, représentant Mme D et Mme

  the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, §§ 46-51, ECHR 2008; and Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , no. 44599/98, §§ 36-40, ECHR 2001 ‑ I).

  23944/05, 8 March 2000 , Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , no.   44599/98, §   38, ECHR 2001 ‑ I). 44.

la Cour ne voit en l’espèce pas de raisons particulières pour se départir de sa tendance générale de se placer sous l’angle de l’article   8 s’agissant de telles questions (voir, par exemple, Bensaid

  v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, §§ 46-51, ECHR 2008; and Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , no. 44599/98, §§ 36-40, ECHR 2001 ‑ I).

case that it has not been established that the applicant’s moral integrity would be substantially affected to a degree falling within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis , Bensaid

State for the infliction of harm, the Court does not find that there is a sufficiently real risk that the applicant’s removal in these circumstances would be contrary to the standards of Article 3 (see Bensaid

considered that the applicants have access to treatment for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in Russia (see N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, §§   46-51, ECHR 2008; and Bensaid

the fact that the second applicant’s circumstances in Russia will be less favourable than those enjoyed by him while in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid

circumstances in their country of origin would be less favourable than those enjoyed by them while residing in the Netherlands cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid

With regard to the alleged damage to his health which might be caused by returning to his home country, which also has to be taken into account when weighing the applicant’s private life (compare Bensaid

Ont été entendus au cours de l'audience publique : - le rapport de Mme Siquier, - les conclusions de Mme Benzaid, rapporteure publique, - et les observations de Me Soltner, représentant la commune

nearby, the Court reiterates that the fact that the applicants’ circumstances in Nigeria would be less favourable than in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid

Croatia (no. 53176/99, §   54, ECHR 2002 ‑ I), and Bensaid v. the United Kingdom (no. 44599/98, §   47, ECHR 2001 ‑ I).

A similar position had previously been adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see, for example, Cantoral Benavides v.

of Article 13 does not, however, mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Bensaid

The fact that the applicant’s circumstances would be less favourable than those she enjoys in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article   3 (see Bensaid v.

Italian Alessandro ARMARO 1981 Palermo Italian Giorgia ARNONE 1975 Bologna Italian Maria ASTORINO 1977 Grosseto Italian Filippo BABACCI 1976 Forlì Italian Chiara BAIAMONTE 1972 Ferrara Italian Barbara BENDANDI

event, the fact that the applicant’s circumstances in Bangladesh would be less favourable than those enjoyed by him in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see, Bensaid

  251 ‑ B, p. 33, § 29), the right to “personal development” (see Bensaid   v. the United Kingdom , no.