CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55 July 2003 Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.) - 33692/02 Decision 1.7.2003 [Section IV] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Expulsion to country of origin and risk of suffering genital mutilation: struck out The applicant is a Tanzanian national who fled to Sweden with a false passport in 1999 for fear of being subjected to female genital mutilation (female circumcision) by her father. She applied for asylum and a residence permit but both applications were rejected by the Migration Board. Following several appeals and applications for a residence permit, in December 2002 the applicant was granted a residence permit and the order to expel her was quashed (on the basis of a report from the Swedish Embassy in Tanzania indicating that there were legitimate reasons for believing that the applicant could be subjected to female genital mutilation if returned to Tanzania). Article 3: Given that the applicant’s lawyer had not submitted any comments on the Government’s request that the Court strike the application off, the Court concluded that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application. Since she had been granted a residence permit and the expulsion order had been quashed, the threat of her suffering inhuman treatment had been removed and the matter had been resolved.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes