The case concerned a Libyan national who arrived in Sweden, via Spain in 2012 and his claim for asylum, based on an alleged risk form the Libyan mafia was rejected but the return decision to Spain could not be enforced as he absconded.

In 2015 he reapplied for asylum in Sweden, claiming that he was on a wanted list in Libya and would be at risk of ill-treatment if returned because he had worked for the Gaddafi regime. His request was rejected both by the Migration Agency in 2017 and the Migration Court in 2019. Those bodies concluded that there was an internal armed conflict in Libya but that it was not so serious that all Libyan nationals seeking asylum needed international protection. They also assessed the applicant’s statements as not credible with regard to his personal situation because they were too vague and inconsistent, lacking documents to support his allegations, except a handwritten passport and some rudimentary copies of arrest warrants. The authorities considered that the applicant failed to substantiate his alleged affiliation with the Gaddafi regime, the warrant for his arrest in Libya and his need for international protection. The Migration Court of Appeal rejected the applicant leave to appeal in January 2020 but his removal was suspended pending the proceedings before the European Court and its application of an urgent interim measure.

The applicant submitted an application before the ECtHR claiming that his removal to Libya would be in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR because of the general security situation there and the fact that he personally was at risk of prosecution and ill-treatment as he had worked for the Gaddafi regime.

The court first noted that the applicant was not yet removed and assessed the security situation in Libya based on the information on the date of decision.

The court noted that there have been general improvements since October 2020, since the ceasefire agreement was signed in Libya. A significant reduction in civilian casualties was noted since the ceasefire and many displaced Libyans were able to return to their areas of origin. Despite a fragile situation, the court agreed with the Swedish authorities’ conclusion that the situation in Libya was not so serious as to consider that all Libyan nationals seeking asylum needed international protection. The court also stated that it had no reason to doubt the authorities’ conclusions regarding the applicant's personal circumstances which were reached after a detailed examination of the file. The authorities have highlighted the inconsistency in the reasons for the two asylum applications: he had originally applied due to threats from the Libyan mafia; then because he and his father had worked for the Gaddafi regime.

The court concluded that the applicant's removal would not be contrary to Article 2 and 3 of the European Convention as he failed to substantiate the risk of being killed or subjected to ill-treatment upon return.

The court decided to indicate to the Government to maintain the interim measure adopted under Article 39 and not to expel the applicant until the present judgment became final.