SMA v the Netherlands - 46051/13 (Third Section Committee) [2017] ECHR 734 (11 July 2017)

SMA v the Netherlands - 46051/13 (Third Section Committee) [2017] ECHR 734 (11 July 2017)

The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon removal to Afghanistan, either on individual or general grounds. The Article 8 complaint was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Article 13 complaint was inadmissible ratione materiae as the Court cannot review the correctness of the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention by domestic authorities. Other complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 734
Parties
Applicant: S. M. A.; Respondent: The Netherlands
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Asylum, Refugee Status, Exclusion Clauses, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 13 ECHR, Entry Ban, Family Life, Effective Remedy
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Asylum Refugee Status Exclusion Clauses Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Article 13 ECHR +3 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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. M. A.

Applicant

The Netherlands

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's removal to Afghanistan violated Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment)
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to admit and removal from the Netherlands violated Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had an effective remedy under Article 13 ECHR against the accusation of being a war criminal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon removal to Afghanistan, either on individual or general grounds. The Article 8 complaint was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Article 13 complaint was inadmissible ratione materiae as the Court cannot review the correctness of the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention by domestic authorities. Other complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible