MIRUTS HAGOS v. THE NETHERLANDS AND ITALY - 9053/10 - Admissibility Decision [2013] ECHR 1345 (27 August 2013)

MIRUTS HAGOS v. THE NETHERLANDS AND ITALY - 9053/10 - Admissibility Decision [2013] ECHR 1345 (27 August 2013)

The applicant failed to demonstrate a real and imminent risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 upon removal to Italy, as there is no systemic failure in the Italian asylum system and no evidence of inability to access available resources or remedies. The applicant also had access to effective remedies in the Netherlands and did not exhaust remedies in Italy. Therefore, the complaints are manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 1345
Parties
Applicant: Hannibal Miruts Hagos; Respondent: The Netherlands; Respondent: Italy
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Admissibility Before the European Court of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Asylum, Refoulement, Effective Remedy, Dublin Regulation, Article 3 ECHR, Article 13 ECHR
Human Rights Law Immigration Law European Union Law Asylum Refoulement Effective Remedy Dublin Regulation Article 3 ECHR +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hannibal Miruts Hagos

Applicant

The Netherlands

Respondent

Italy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Admissibility Before the European Court of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of the applicant to Italy by the Netherlands violated Article 3 of the Convention due to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or refoulement to Eritrea
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a real and imminent risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 upon removal to Italy, as there is no systemic failure in the Italian asylum system and no evidence of inability to access available resources or remedies. The applicant also had access to effective remedies in the Netherlands and did not exhaust remedies in Italy. Therefore, the complaints are manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible