CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14863/25 M.R. against Sweden lodged on 14 May 2025 communicated on 2 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, an Afghan national, requested asylum in Sweden. In several sets of proceedings, during the years from 2015 to 2025, the Swedish authorities refused his requests and ordered his deportation. In the most recent proceedings, the applicant also cited his relationship with his partner and child, who are legally resident in Sweden. The applicant complains that, if he were to be deported, he would face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention mainly owing to a previous conflict with a local commander, his Hazara ethnicity, his religious beliefs, and his so-called “westernisation”. He also complains that his deportation would violate Article 8 of the Convention, due to the family ties he has to his partner and child in Sweden and the private life he has established in Sweden. His request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted by the Court on 11 June 2025.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims, the documents which have been submitted and relevant country information, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were deported to Afghanistan? In particular, would he face such a risk on account of his Hazara origin, his religious beliefs and his so-called “westernisation”, alone or in combination with any further circumstances, taking into consideration, inter alia , country information regarding the situation in Afghanistan for individuals of Hazara ethnicity; individuals considered to have committed apostasy; individuals perceived to have transgressed religious, moral and/or societal norms, including by having pre-marital relationships; and individuals perceived as influenced by foreign values (see, for example, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Afghanistan (Update I) , February 2023, § 16 (iv), and European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), Country Guidance: Afghanistan 2024, May 2024, Common analysis, sections 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14.2)?   2.     Did the refusal to grant the applicant a residence permit entail a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the competent domestic authorities and courts adequately examined that question, taking into account all relevant circumstances and striking a fair balance between the competing interests involved, in a manner consistent with the Convention and the Court’s case law (see, for example, Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, §§   103-109, 3   October 2014; Pormes   v. the Netherlands , no.   25402/14, §§   51-58, 28 July 2020; and M.A. v. Denmark [GC], no. 6697/18, §§ 131-135 and 149, 9 July 2021)?