Information Note on the Court’s case-law 184
April 2015
M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC] - 71398/12
Judgment 8.4.2015 [GC]
Article 37
Article 37-1
Striking out applications
Homosexual man required to return to Libya in order to apply for family reunion: struck-out following grant of residence permit
Article 3
Expulsion
Homosexual man required to return to Libya in order to apply for family reunion: struck-out following grant of residence permit
Facts – The applicant, a Libyan national who had been living in Sweden since 2010, applied for asylum there initially on the grounds that he feared persecution because he was homosexual and had married a man. The Migration Board and the Migration Court rejected his request on the grounds that his story lacked credibility.
On 26 June 2014 a Chamber of the Court delivered a judgment in which it held by six votes to one that the implementation of the expulsion order against the applicant would not give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Information Note 175).
On 17 November 2014 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.
On 17 December 2014 the domestic authorities issued the applicant with a permanent residence permit.
Law – Article 37 § 1: The granting of a permanent residence permit to the applicant, which effectively repealed the expulsion order, had been taken by the domestic authorities of their own motion. In examining the present case, there was no need to enquire retrospectively into whether a real risk engaging the respondent State’s responsibility under Article 3 of the Convention existed when the domestic authorities refused the applicant’s asylum requests or when the Chamber adopted its judgment as these historical facts did not shed light on the applicant’s current situation. Moreover, when granting the applicant a permanent residence permit, the domestic authorities had taken into account both the deterioration in the security situation in Libya since the summer of 2014 and the applicant’s sexual orientation, which would have put him at risk of being persecuted if sent back to his home country. Against this background, the Court found no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which required the continued examination of the case. As the risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention alleged by the applicant had been removed by the domestic authorities’ decision, the matter was considered resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
Conclusion: struck-out (unanimously).
(See the Factsheets on Expulsions and extraditions and Sexual orientation issues)
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy