CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 December 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 43654/18 S.S. against Sweden lodged on 11 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the deportation to Afghanistan of an Afghan woman whose asylum application has been rejected. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims, the documents which have been submitted and relevant country information on Afghanistan, would she face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention if the deportation order were enforced (see, inter alia , Saadi v.   Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 124-133, ECHR 2008; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-118, 23 March 2016; J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 79-98, 23 August 2016; and A.M.   v.   the Netherlands , no.   29094/09, §§ 77-80 and 87, 5 July 2016)? In particular, would she face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the situation in Afghanistan for women who lack the support of a male network and for women who are considered to have transgressed social or moral norms, taking into consideration, inter alia , the circumstances surrounding her marriage, including the fact that she allegedly never lived with her husband, her current views on remaining in the marriage, the period of time she has spent in Sweden and the practical availability of a male network that would be willing and able to support her upon return?   2.     Would the applicant face a real risk of a flagrant violation of Article 9 if the deportation order were enforced (see, inter alia , Z. and T. v.   the   United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, 28 February 2006 ; and Razaghi v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64599/01, 11 March 2003) ?