CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30033/24 D.O. and L.A. against Sweden lodged on 10 October 2024 communicated on 27 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the removal of the applicants, who are Syrian nationals, from Sweden to Greece. The applicants arrived in Greece in March 2020 and applied for asylum there. They lived under poor conditions, received no financial assistance and were allegedly denied medical care. After almost two years, they travelled to Sweden, where their adult children live, and took up residence with their son. In January 2022, shortly after arriving in Sweden, the first applicant suffered a severe cerebral haemorrhage, which required hospitalisation and resulted in, inter alia , aphasia, affecting his ability to understand and express information, and other disabilities. According to medical certificates the cerebral haemorrhage was an effect of his hypertension being untreated during his stay in Greece. He was prescribed several medicines to prevent a new cerebral haemorrhage. In January 2022 the applicants requested asylum in Sweden. Unbeknownst to the applicants, they had on 23 March 2021 been granted refugee status in Greece and residence permits valid until 22 March 2024. The Swedish authorities rejected the applicants’ asylum requests and ordered their removal to Greece, on the grounds that they had obtained refugee status in Greece. The applicants complain that if they were to be removed to Greece, they would face treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention due to the living conditions and the lack of medical care there. In particular, they submit that the first applicant was consistently denied vital medical care in Greece and that if he does not obtain adequate treatment and assistance forthwith, he is at risk of fatal consequences. Furthermore, they complain that the decision to remove them violates Article 8 of the Convention, in view of their strong dependency on their children in Sweden, especially on their son. In particular, they submit that the first applicant has an extensive need of assistance in his everyday life. The applicants’ request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted by the Court on 18 November 2024. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. In light of the applicants’ claims, the documents which have been submitted and relevant country information, would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if they were removed to Greece? In particular, would they face such a risk on account of the living conditions they would face in Greece and/or their medical conditions and their access to adequate medical care in Greece (see, for example,   Paposhvili v.   Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, §§ 183-193, 13 December 2016; and   Savran v.   Denmark [GC], no. 57467/15, §§ 124-139, 7 December 2021)?   2. Given the specific circumstances of the case, is there “family life” between the applicants and any of their children in Sweden (see, for example, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 97, ECHR 2003-X; Senchishak v.   Finland , no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; and A.S. v.   Switzerland , no.   39350/13, § 49, 30 June 2015 )? Did the decision to remove the applicants entail a violation of the applicants’ rights to respect for their family life and/or private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?