M.O. v. SWITZERLAND - 41282/16 (Judgment : No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Eritrea)) [2017] ECHR 573 (20 June 2017)

M.O. v. SWITZERLAND - 41282/16 (Judgment : No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Eritrea)) [2017] ECHR 573 (20 June 2017)

The Court found that, although the general human rights situation in Eritrea is concerning, the applicant failed to credibly demonstrate a real and individualised risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon return. The inconsistencies and lack of substantiation in his account undermined his claim. Therefore, his expulsion to Eritrea would not violate Article 3 of the Convention.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 573
Parties
Applicant: M. O.; Respondent: Swiss Confederation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment
Outcome
No violation of Article 3 ECHR found
Legal Topics
Expulsion, Non Refoulement, Asylum, Prohibition of Torture, Article 3 ECHR
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Expulsion Non Refoulement Asylum Prohibition of Torture Article 3 ECHR

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. O.

Applicant

Swiss Confederation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's expulsion to Eritrea would violate Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant credibly demonstrated risk of ill-treatment upon return to Eritrea

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that, although the general human rights situation in Eritrea is concerning, the applicant failed to credibly demonstrate a real and individualised risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon return. The inconsistencies and lack of substantiation in his account undermined his claim. Therefore, his expulsion to Eritrea would not violate Article 3 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

No violation of Article 3 ECHR found

Orders

  • Application dismissed