N.A. v. SWITZERLAND - 50364/14 (Judgment : Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expul...) French Text [2017] ECHR 489 (30 May 2017)

N.A. v. SWITZERLAND - 50364/14 (Judgment : Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expul...) French Text [2017] ECHR 489 (30 May 2017)

Applicant's political activities in exile were limited to participation without exposure or leadership; no evidence of past interest by Sudanese authorities; no credible risk of persecution or ill-treatment upon return. The applicant's claims lacked plausibility and documentation. Therefore, expulsion would not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 489
Parties
Applicant: N. A.; Respondent: Confédération suisse
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
30 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Expulsion, Risk of Torture, Risk to Life, Political Activities in Exile, Asylum, Non Refoulement
Human Rights Immigration Refugee Law Expulsion Risk of Torture Risk to Life Political Activities in Exile Asylum +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. A.

Applicant

Confédération suisse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expulsion of the applicant to Sudan would violate Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether applicant's political activities in exile create a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment upon return

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's political activities in exile were limited to participation without exposure or leadership; no evidence of past interest by Sudanese authorities; no credible risk of persecution or ill-treatment upon return. The applicant's claims lacked plausibility and documentation. Therefore, expulsion would not violate Article 2 or Article 3.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Request declared admissible
  • No violation of Article 2 or Article 3 in case of expulsion to Sudan