M.E. v Sweden
European Court of Human Rights · Application no. 71398/12 · See HUDOC for procedural history · Council of Europe
Key principle
Illustrates the interaction between Article 3, family situation and changing personal circumstances in SOGI removal cases.
Facts
The applicant, married to a same-sex partner in Sweden, faced removal to Libya. The case attracted interim measures.
Legal questions
Would removal to Libya, in light of the applicant's sexual orientation and family situation, engage Article 3?
Holding
The case was ultimately struck out by the Grand Chamber after circumstances changed. It should not be described as a final merits precedent on Article 3.
Practical relevance
Important as procedural history and as an example of interim-measures practice.
Limitations
Not a Grand Chamber merits ruling. Consult the strike-out decision on HUDOC before citing.
General information only. ImmigrationLGBT is not a law firm and this summary is not personalised legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer or accredited representative in the relevant jurisdiction. Legal status and subsequent treatment of the decision may have changed.