CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s56524E92 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 December 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22720/24 M.S. against Sweden lodged on 7 August 2024 communicated on 2 December 2024 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 2024, the Swedish authorities refused his requests and ordered his deportation. The applicant complains that, if he were to be deported, he would face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention mainly owing to his Hazara ethnicity, his intellectual disability and mental health problems, his conversion to Christianity and his “westernisation”. He, furthermore, complains that the Swedish authorities failed to adequately assess the risks he would face in Afghanistan and that there were deficiencies in the domestic proceedings. In particular, he argues that his intellectual disability was not properly accommodated during the domestic proceedings nor properly considered in the domestic authorities’ decisions and that the authorities did not perform a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative risks he faced. Moreover, invoking Article 14 of the Convention he complains that the failure to properly accommodate his intellectual disability in the proceedings led to unequal treatment in comparison to asylum seekers without disabilities. The applicant’s request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted by the Court on 22 August 2024.   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 Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if he were deported to Afghanistan?   In particular, would he face such a risk on account of his Hazara origin, alone or in combination with any further individual circumstances, taking into consideration, inter alia , country information regarding the situation in Afghanistan for individuals of Hazara ethnicity 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, 17 May 2024, Common analysis, sections 3.13 and   3.14.2)?   2.     Did the domestic authorities fulfil their procedural obligation to conduct an adequate examination of whether the applicant would face a real risk of death or ill ‑ treatment if he were deported to Afghanistan, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?   In particular, was the applicant’s alleged disability and/or cognitive difficulties adequately taken into account during the domestic proceedings and in the domestic authorities’ decisions?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in particular in view of his claim that his disability and/or cognitive difficulties were not adequately taken into account during the domestic proceedings and in the domestic authorities’ decisions?