CAT/C/55/D/642/2014 European Union Dublin Regulation procedure,1 he had to be sent back to Sweden. However, his return to Sweden was on hold as he needed to undergo surgery to remove two pieces of shrapnel from his head. Between March 2012 and the spring of 2013, he stayed in Austria, but was homeless during that time. On 4 May 2012, he had the operation, but the surgeons were unable to remove the larger piece of shrapnel. A second operation was scheduled for 6 May 2013, but the complainant decided to move to France, as he feared that, once he had recovered, he would be sent back to Sweden and then back to Chechnya in the Russian Federation. He claims that he applied for asylum in France, but that his request was refused on the same grounds as in Austria. Thereafter, he was deported to Sweden. 2.9 While he was waiting to be deported to the Russian Federation, he married a Chechen asylum seeker who had been granted temporary stay in Sweden. They had a child, who was born on 18 February 2014. The complainant argues that in March 2014, the Swedish Migration Court refused to accept another application submitted by him. 2.10 On 17 November 2014, the complainant lodged an application and requested interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights. According to his initial complaint, he claimed before the European Court that his deportation to the Russian Federation by Sweden would put him at serious risk of torture. On 21 November 2014, the European Court rejected the complainant’s request for interim measures and stated that “in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, found that they did not disclose any appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and declared your application inadmissible”. The complainant submits that on 28 November 2014, he was arrested by the Swedish authorities in preparation for his deportation on 5 December 2014. The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that by forcibly returning him to the Russian Federation, the State party would breach its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. His removal would expose him to persecution, torture and inhuman treatment by local authorities. 3.2 The Swedish authorities did not adequately assess the risk he would face if returned to the Russian Federation. They failed to assess his personal situation in Chechnya prior to his departure and the fact that the Russian authorities believe him to have connections with rebel groups. The complainant also points out that the general human rights situation in Chechnya is such that the use of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment is widespread. 3.3 Should the complainant be deported, he would be separated from his wife and child. In addition, he claims that his health has been deteriorating. He still has a piece of shrapnel in his head and needs surgery to remove it. He would be unable have such surgery in Chechnya. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 25 November 2013, the State party objected to the admissibility of the complaint pursuant to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, and maintained that the same matter had already been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. 1 4 Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national.