ME v Sweden — Strasbourg rules no violation of article 3 for Sweden to temporarily expel a gay man to Libya
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in a judgment handed down, has declared admissible on article 3 grounds an application from a gay man regarding his expulsion from Sweden to Libya. They declared inadmissible an article 8 ECHR claim. However, as the court could not be certain that the evidence showed article 3 ill treatment of gay men in Libya, and importantly the court found that any expulsion would be temporary for a period of approximately four months in order for him to make his family reunion application, based on his same-sex marriage to a Swedish national, then any suppression of his sexual identity will not be permanent, the court by a six-to-one majority decision held that there was no violation of article 3. The court declared the article 8 ECHR claim inadmissible. Maltese Judge De Gaetano in his separate opinion castigates his fellow majority judges for proceeding on the basis that it is accepted that ME is gay and in a genuine relationship with a Swedish man. This judge also sees no reason for the Strasbourg court to refer to the recent Luxembourg judgment in X, Y and Z relating to criminalisation and persecution…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?