Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
S.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Sudan);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
S.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 3 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 20102/13
SABER YACOUB v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
A general overview of the relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings has been set out in X v. the Netherlands (no. 14319/17, §§ 34-40, 10 July 2018), and the domestic policy in respect of Sudanese asylum-seekers as of 13 June 2018 has been set out in A.S. v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 20102/13, 20 November 2018).In so far as the applicant claimed that in Sudan he would be at risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 on account of his non-Arab ethnic origin, having regard to various recent international reports on the situation in the Khartoum region for persons of non-Arab origin according to which persons of non-Arab origin may experience discrimination in Sudanese society because of their ethnicity and may, on account of their non-Arab ethnicity, be associated with Darfuri rebel groups but that the extent of negative attention from the side of the authorities will depend on individual features of the person concerned and is not systematic (see paragraphs 40, 44 and 46-49 above), the Court observes that the situation for such persons is certainly not ideal, but cannot find that this situation can be regarded as so harrowing that it must be concluded that people of non-Arab ethnic origin are at risk of persecution or serious harm in Khartoum solely on the grounds of their ethnicity (see, A.S. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 20102/13, § 53, 20 November 2018, W.M. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 12708/16, § 25, 20 November 2018, and A.I. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 36196/16, § 35, 20 November 2018).
- EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 68377/17
NAGPAL AND MADAN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
Under the new policy, only the following persons are considered as belonging to an "at-risk" group (as regards this category, see A.S.N. and Others v. the Netherlands, nos. 68377/17 and 530/18, § 57, 25 February 2020 (not final)):. - EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 46856/07
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
The expression "effective remedy" used in Article 13 cannot be interpreted as a remedy that is bound to succeed; it simply means an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for instance, M.R.A. and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 46856/07, § 114, 12 January 2016).
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 14319/17
X v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
A general overview of the relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings has been set out in X v. the Netherlands (no. 14319/17, §§ 34-40, 10 July 2018), and the domestic policy in respect of Sudanese asylum-seekers as of 13 June 2018 has been set out in A.S. v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 20102/13, 20 November 2018). - EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 50364/14
N.A. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
In this connection, referring to A.I. v. Switzerland (no. 23378/15, 30 May 2017) and N.A. v. Switzerland (no. 50364/14, 30 May 2017), the Government pointed out that suspected members or supporters of rebel movements, as well as individuals who opposed or were perceived to oppose the regime, had been designated as belonging to "at-risk groups". - EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 12708/16
W.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
In so far as the applicant claimed that in Sudan he would be at risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 on account of his non-Arab ethnic origin, having regard to various recent international reports on the situation in the Khartoum region for persons of non-Arab origin according to which persons of non-Arab origin may experience discrimination in Sudanese society because of their ethnicity and may, on account of their non-Arab ethnicity, be associated with Darfuri rebel groups but that the extent of negative attention from the side of the authorities will depend on individual features of the person concerned and is not systematic (see paragraphs 40, 44 and 46-49 above), the Court observes that the situation for such persons is certainly not ideal, but cannot find that this situation can be regarded as so harrowing that it must be concluded that people of non-Arab ethnic origin are at risk of persecution or serious harm in Khartoum solely on the grounds of their ethnicity (see, A.S. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 20102/13, § 53, 20 November 2018, W.M. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 12708/16, § 25, 20 November 2018, and A.I. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 36196/16, § 35, 20 November 2018). - EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 43092/16
A.G. AND M.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
The Court reiterates that it is often difficult to establish, precisely, the pertinent facts in cases such as the present one, and it has accepted that, as a general principle, the national authorities are best placed to assess not just the facts but, more particularly, the credibility of asylum claimants, since it is they who have had an opportunity to see, hear and assess the demeanour of the individuals concerned (see F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, § 118, and A.G. and M.M. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43092/16, § 28, 26 June 2018). - EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 36196/16
A.I. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 49773/15
In so far as the applicant claimed that in Sudan he would be at risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 on account of his non-Arab ethnic origin, having regard to various recent international reports on the situation in the Khartoum region for persons of non-Arab origin according to which persons of non-Arab origin may experience discrimination in Sudanese society because of their ethnicity and may, on account of their non-Arab ethnicity, be associated with Darfuri rebel groups but that the extent of negative attention from the side of the authorities will depend on individual features of the person concerned and is not systematic (see paragraphs 40, 44 and 46-49 above), the Court observes that the situation for such persons is certainly not ideal, but cannot find that this situation can be regarded as so harrowing that it must be concluded that people of non-Arab ethnic origin are at risk of persecution or serious harm in Khartoum solely on the grounds of their ethnicity (see, A.S. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 20102/13, § 53, 20 November 2018, W.M. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 12708/16, § 25, 20 November 2018, and A.I. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 36196/16, § 35, 20 November 2018).
- VG Düsseldorf, 20.03.2024 - 22 L 497/24
Systemische Mängel, Vorlagebeschluss EuGH, Aufnahmestopp, Aufnahmeverweigerung, …
Rn. 83 Vgl. etwa EGMR, Entscheidung vom 2. Juni 2020, S.A. ./. Niederlande - 49773/15 -, CE:ECHR:2020:0602JUD004977315: Keine Verletzung von Art. 3 EMRK durch die Rückführung eines Angehörigen einer ethnischen Minderheit in den Sudan, obwohl die Angehörigen dieser Minderheit üblicherweise in Barackensiedlungen ("shanty towns") leben ohne Grundversorgung und mit der Gefahr, aus der Unterkunft vertrieben zu werden. - VG Düsseldorf, 24.01.2024 - 22 L 3411/23
Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz nach § 80 Abs. 5 VwGO, Vollziehbarkeit der …
Rn. 77 Vgl. etwa EGMR, Entscheidung vom 2. Juni 2020, S.A../.Niederlande - 49773/15 -, http://curia.europa.eu: Keine Verletzung von Art. 3 EMRK durch die Rückführung eines Angehörigen einer ethnischen Minderheit in den Sudan, obwohl die Angehörigen dieser Minderheit üblicherweise in Barackensiedlungen ("shanty towns") leben ohne Grundversorgung und mit der Gefahr, aus der Unterkunft vertrieben zu werden. - EGMR - 60417/16 (anhängig)
A.H. v. SERBIA AND NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application
Are there currently any asylum or removal proceedings pending in Serbia against the applicant? If the case of latter, have directions been given as regards the date and the country of destination? Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, if he was to be expelled to one of the transit countries or his country of origin, directly or by way of refoulement (see, in respect of the applicant's country of origin, A.A. v. France, no. 18039/11, 15 January 2015 and A.F. v. France, no. 80086/13, 15 January 2015; M.A. v. Belgium, no. 19656/18, 27 October 2020; S.A. v. the Netherlands, no. 49773/15, 2 June 2020; see, also, mutatis mutandis, A.A. v. Switzerland, no. 58802/12, 7 January 2014)?.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".