Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06

As to the applicant's further argument that, given the publicity attracted by the criminal proceedings taken against him before the Rotterdam Regional Court, the Libyan authorities had become aware of the nature of the suspicions having arisen against him in the Netherlands and that he would also for that reason risk treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in Libya, the provisional measures judge held, referring to the general principles under Article 3 of the Convention as defined by the Court in its judgments in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, (judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215) and Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (no. 58510/00, 17 February 2004), that also this had not been established.

Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, § 111, Series A no. 215), Pranjko v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 45925/99, 23 February 1999) and Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands ((dec.), nos.

Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06

Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Hilal v. the United Kingdom (no. 45276/99, § 63), ECHR 2001-II), Said v. the Netherlands (no. 2345/02, § 51, ECHR 2005-VI), Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (no. 13284/04, § 45, ECHR 2005-XI), D. and Others v. Turkey (no. 24245/03, §§ 46-48, 22 June 2006), the applicant considered that the Netherlands authorities have fallen short, as regards the scope and meticulousness, of their obligation under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention to investigate meticulously and assess adequately his claim that in Libya there existed for him a real risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3. The Netherlands authorities trivialised his role in and activities for the opposition in Libya and abroad without considering these in the light of statements of the NFSL, the LLHR and Amnesty International, and fully disregarded the consequences of the (publicity of the) Rotterdam jihad trial and of him being declared a danger to national security as a Islamic terrorist suspect and the imminent dangers connected to this imputation for the applicant if he were to be expelled to Libya.

Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06

Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Hilal v. the United Kingdom (no. 45276/99, § 63), ECHR 2001-II), Said v. the Netherlands (no. 2345/02, § 51, ECHR 2005-VI), Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (no. 13284/04, § 45, ECHR 2005-XI), D. and Others v. Turkey (no. 24245/03, §§ 46-48, 22 June 2006), the applicant considered that the Netherlands authorities have fallen short, as regards the scope and meticulousness, of their obligation under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention to investigate meticulously and assess adequately his claim that in Libya there existed for him a real risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3. The Netherlands authorities trivialised his role in and activities for the opposition in Libya and abroad without considering these in the light of statements of the NFSL, the LLHR and Amnesty International, and fully disregarded the consequences of the (publicity of the) Rotterdam jihad trial and of him being declared a danger to national security as a Islamic terrorist suspect and the imminent dangers connected to this imputation for the applicant if he were to be expelled to Libya.

Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06

Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Hilal v. the United Kingdom (no. 45276/99, § 63), ECHR 2001-II), Said v. the Netherlands (no. 2345/02, § 51, ECHR 2005-VI), Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (no. 13284/04, § 45, ECHR 2005-XI), D. and Others v. Turkey (no. 24245/03, §§ 46-48, 22 June 2006), the applicant considered that the Netherlands authorities have fallen short, as regards the scope and meticulousness, of their obligation under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention to investigate meticulously and assess adequately his claim that in Libya there existed for him a real risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3. The Netherlands authorities trivialised his role in and activities for the opposition in Libya and abroad without considering these in the light of statements of the NFSL, the LLHR and Amnesty International, and fully disregarded the consequences of the (publicity of the) Rotterdam jihad trial and of him being declared a danger to national security as a Islamic terrorist suspect and the imminent dangers connected to this imputation for the applicant if he were to be expelled to Libya.

Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06

The respondent Government submitted that, in view of the Court findings in Jabari v. Turkey (no. 40035/98, § 39, ECHR 2000 VIII) and I.I.N. v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 2035/04, 9 December 2004), the fact that the AIVD believes the applicant to be a threat to national security necessitates an extremely thorough examination of whether the applicant has indeed made a plausible case that there are substantial grounds for concluding that he would be at risk of treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention in case of his expulsion to Libya.