Published on 19 September 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 32891/22 A.N. against Sweden lodged on 28 June 2022 communicated on 31 August 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s pending expulsion to Syria. The applicant is a Kurdish man from Qamishli, Syria, who applied for asylum in Sweden in 2019 but was refused.

After the applicant’s asylum proceedings were concluded in 2021, he suffered a serious accident. Following the accident, the applicant has a number of health issues, uses a wheelchair, and has limited use of his hands and arms. He requires medication and assistance in all his daily activities. To date, he remains in hospital where he receives full time care. He is expected to need a high level of care for life.

Following the accident, the applicant requested reconsideration of his asylum application. By a decision of 22 December 2021, that request was dismissed by the Migration Agency. That conclusion was confirmed by the Migration Court on 21 February 2022. The Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on 4 March 2022. The domestic authorities concluded that although the applicant’s medical issues were serious they did not constitute impediments to the enforcement of his expulsion order, that it had not been established that the applicant was in need of medical care which would not be available to him in Syria, and that his expulsion would not violate his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

On 28 June 2022 the applicant submitted an application to the Court, and requested that the Court indicate to the Government interim measures preventing his expulsion.

On 8 July 2022 the Court (the duty judge) decided to suspend the examination of Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court until receipt of information from the parties. On 15 July 2022 the requested information was received.

On 19 July 2022 the Court (the duty judge) decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be removed from Sweden for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Court furthermore decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court.

The applicant complains that his expulsion to Syria would constitute a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. He submits that he could not be transported to Syria without a serious risk to his life and that once there, he would have no means of accessing the medical treatment, medication, and high level of care that he needs. This, the applicant submits, would lead to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his health, resulting in severe suffering and a significantly shortened life expectancy. He moreover submits that despite the doubts as to the accessibility of care in Syria which he demonstrated during the reconsideration proceedings, the domestic authorities placed the burden of proof entirely on him.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. If the applicant were to be expelled to Syria, would there be a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, taking account of the applicant’s medical condition and disability, his personal circumstances and the general security situation in Syria (see, for example, Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 183, 13 December 2016; M.D. and Others v. Russia , nos. 71321/17 and 8 others, § 109, 14 September 2021; and Savran v. Denmark [GC], no. 57467/15, §§ 121-136, 7 December 2021)?

2. Were the applicant’s submissions concerning a lack of access to the necessary care in Syria duly examined during the reconsideration proceedings?

In this regard, did the applicant adduce evidence capable of demonstrating that there were substantial grounds for believing that his expulsion would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Paposhvili , cited above, § 186)?

If so, how did the authorities dispel any doubts raised by that evidence (see Paposhvili , cited above, § 187)?

3. Were the applicant’s changed circumstances and the effect of his disability on the possible risk he would face upon return to Syria duly examined in the context of the reconsideration proceedings (see, for example, M.D. and Others , cited above, § 91?