A.M.E. v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 51428/10 - Legal Summary [2015] ECHR 271 (13 January 2015)

The applicant failed to establish that his return to Italy would expose him to a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3 ECHR.

Citation: [2015] ECHR 271
Parties: Applicant: A. M. E.; Respondent: the Netherlands
Jurisdiction: European Union
Judgment Date: 13 January 2015
Procedural Posture: Application for Inadmissibility Decision / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)
Legal Topics: Expulsion, Asylum, Article 3 ECHR, Dublin II Regulation

Human Rights Law Immigration Law Expulsion Asylum Article 3 ECHR Dublin II Regulation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

A. M. E.

Applicant

the Netherlands

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Inadmissibility Decision / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicant's transfer to Italy would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that his return to Italy would expose him to a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3 ECHR.

Court Disposition

inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)