CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .sDA30A789 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sD16F2F1F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       FIFTH SECTION Application no. 71398/12 M.E. against Sweden lodged on 3 November 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant is a Libyan national who, unsuccessfully, applied for asylum in Sweden. His request for a residence permit in Sweden on the basis of his marriage to another man was also rejected on the ground that he should apply for family reunification from his home country, in accordance with relevant provisions in the Aliens Act. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr S-Å. Petersson from Stockholm. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that an implementation of the deportation order to return him to Libya would be in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the refusal by the Swedish authorities to consider, in Sweden, the applicant’s request for a residence permit on the basis of his marriage to another man and thereby obligating him to return to his home country to apply from there, amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he was forced to return to Libya to apply for a Swedish residence permit on the basis of his marriage to another man from there?