CAT/C/63/D/744/2016 Advance unedited version accepted the request on 10 March 2017. Then, according to information from Germany 15 sent to the Swedish Migration Agency, the complainant entered Germany on 24 May 2017 and applied for asylum on 7 June 2017. On 14 June 2017, the German authorities requested acceptance for transfer of the complainant back to Sweden in accordance with Regulation (EU) 604/2013. The Swedish Migration Agency accepted the request on 20 June 2017. 4.3 As far as the admissibility is concerned, the State party recalls that the complainant has previously lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, which was declared inadmissible. The State party submits that there is nothing in the complainant’s submissions before the Committee to suggest that his application to the European Court concerned something else than his expulsion to Iraq. As to the complainant’s argument that new information on the Iranian influence and the security situation in Iraq constitute new facts and that his complaint to the Committee should hence be considered a different matter than his application to the European Court, the State party considers that merely updated information on the situation in Iraq cannot be considered as new circumstances distinguishing the two complaints. Therefore, the application before the European Court relates to the same parties, the same facts, the same substantive rights and therefore the same matter as those invoked in the present complaint. In other words, the present complaint regards the same matter as the application previously lodged by the complainant with the European Court.16 4.4 Turning to the issue of whether the European Court has examined the substance of the complainant’s application in the sense of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the State party recalls that the Committee has repeatedly considered that a communication has been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if its decision was not solely based on mere procedural issues, but on reasons that indicate a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case.17 After enumerating the admissibility criteria in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the State party concludes that there is nothing in the complainant’s submissions to indicate that his application to the European Court did not fulfil the criteria in article 34 of the European Convention. The complainant had exhausted domestic remedies before applying to the European Court; according to the European Court’s case law, the six-month time limit does not de facto apply in cases concerning expulsion when the applicant has not yet been expelled;18 and the complainant has not mentioned anything which would indicate that his application to the European Court was anonymous or substantially the same as a matter already examined by the Court or submitted to another procedure of international investigation. For the State party, the only inadmissibility grounds that remain are article 35 (3) (a) and (b) of the European Convention,19 and it is clear from the wording of that Convention that an assessment of both these grounds must involve a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. 4.5 Therefore, the State party claims that the European Court must have declared the complainant’s application inadmissible for reasons relating to the substance of his application, rather than solely on mere procedural grounds. Under these circumstances, it 15 16 17 18 19 6 an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person. No further information is provided. M.T. v. Sweden (CAT/C/55/D/642/2014), paras. 8.3-8.4; A.R.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/38/D/305/2006), paras. 6.1-6.2; and A.G. v. Sweden (CAT/C/24/D/140/1999), paras. 6.2 and 7. M.T. v. Sweden, paras. 8.3-8.5; A.A. v. Azerbaijan (CAT/C/35/D/247/2004), paras. 6.6-6.9; and E.E. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/50/D/479/2011), paras. 8.2-8.4. The State party quotes European Court of Human Rights, P.Z. and others v. Sweden (application No. 68194/10), decision of 29 May 2012, paras. 27-36, and B.Z. v. Sweden (application No. 74352/11), decision of 29 May 2012, paras. 24-34. Article 35 (3) (a) and (b) read as follows: “(a) the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; or (b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.”