EK v THE NETHERLANDS - 72586/11 (Third Section Committee) [2017] ECHR 731 (11 July 2017)

EK v THE NETHERLANDS - 72586/11 (Third Section Committee) [2017] ECHR 731 (11 July 2017)

Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for believing he would be exposed to a real and personal risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 if removed to Afghanistan; interference with family life justified under Article 8 § 2 given seriousness of crimes and public interest; no violation of Article 13 as effective remedies were available.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 731
Parties
Applicant: E. K.; Respondent: The Netherlands
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Decision on Admissibility and Merits
Outcome
Application rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.
Legal Topics
Asylum, Exclusion Under Article 1 F Refugee Convention, Right to Family Life, Prohibition of Torture, Effective Remedy
Human Rights Law Immigration Law International Law Asylum Exclusion Under Article 1 F Refugee Convention Right to Family Life Prohibition of Torture Effective Remedy

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. K.

Applicant

The Netherlands

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Decision on Admissibility and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of applicant to Afghanistan would violate Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment)
  2. 2 Whether denial of residence and exclusion order violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
  3. 3 Whether applicant had an effective remedy under Article 13

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for believing he would be exposed to a real and personal risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 if removed to Afghanistan; interference with family life justified under Article 8 § 2 given seriousness of crimes and public interest; no violation of Article 13 as effective remedies were available.

Court Disposition

Application rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.