ECtHR - X v. The Netherlands, Application no. 14319/17, 10 July 2018
| Country of applicant: | Morocco |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) |
| Date of decision: | 10-07-2018 |
| Citation: | X v. The Netherlands (Application no. 14319/17), ECHR 2018 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Non-refoulement
Description
A core principle of international Refugee Law that prohibits States from returning refugees in any manner whatsoever to countries or territories in which their lives or freedom may be threatened. Note: The principle of non-refoulement is a part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all States, whether or not they are parties to the Geneva Convention. |
|
Terrorism
Description
Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing an act. |
|
Country of origin
Description
The country (or countries) which are a source of migratory flows and of which a migrant may have citizenship. In refugee context, this means the country (or countries) of nationality or, for stateless persons, of former habitual residence. |
|
Return
Description
"In the context of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), the process of going back - whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced - to: - one's country of origin; or - a country of transit in accordance with EU or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements; or - another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he/she will be accepted. There are subcategories of return which can describe the way the return is implemented, e.g. voluntary, forced, assisted and spontaneous return; as well as sub-categories which describe who is participating in the return, e.g. repatriation (for refugees)." |
Headnote:
Article 3 has not been violated in a case concerning the deportation of an individual who had been convicted of a terrorism-related charge to Morocco. However the ECtHR acknowledges that ill-treatment and torture by the police and the security forces still occur, particularly in the case of persons suspected of terrorism or of endangering State security.
Facts:
The applicant was arrested in 2015 on terrorism-related charges and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. His asylum application was rejected on several instances.
He complained before the ECtHR that his removal to Morocco would put him at risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR, given that the Moroccan authorities would be aware of his conviction for terrorism-related crimes in the Netherlands, his association with a dismantled Moroccan militant cell and his asylum application.
Decision & reasoning:
The ECtHR relied upon available country of origin information on Morocco, such as the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the observations of the UN Human Rights Committee, and affirmed that ill-treatment and torture by the police and the security forces still occur, particularly in the case of persons suspected of terrorism or of endangering State security. Nevertheless, the Court does not find there to be a general and systematic practice of torture and ill-treatment, which is to be determined based on the specific situation of the person concerned.
In the applicant’s case, while it must be assumed that the Moroccan authorities are aware of the nature of the applicant’s conviction in the Netherlands, nothing in the case materials indicate that the Moroccan authorities have ever taken any steps demonstrating an interest in the applicant, or that the Moroccan judicial authorities would fail to respect the principle of ne bis in idem by prosecuting the applicant in Morocco as a terrorist because of his conviction in the Netherlands. Therefore, the Court found that the assessment by the domestic authorities was adequate and sufficiently supported by reliable and objective material and that the applicant’s removal to Morocco would not result in a violation of Article 3 ECHR.
Outcome:
No violation of Article 3.
Cited National Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07 |
| ECtHR - Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands, Application No. 1948/04, |
| ECtHR - Trabelsi v. Belgium, (Application no. 140/10), 4 September 2014 |
| ECtHR - Maslov v. Austria ([GC], no 1638/03 |
| ECtHR - Ouabour v. Belgium (no. 26417/10), 2 June 2015 |
| ECtHR - F.G. v. Sweden (no. 43611/11) (Grand Chamber), 23 March 2016 |
| ECtHR - Vilvarajah and others v. The United Kingdom, Application Nos. 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87, 30 October 1991 |
| ECtHR - Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996 |
| ECtHR – Saadi v. Italy, Application No. 37201/06, 28 February 2008 |
| ECtHR - Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application no. 41738/10,13 December 2016 |
| ECtHR - Rafaa v. France (no. 25393/10, ECtHR 30 May 2013 |
| ECtHR - X v. Sweden, Application No. 36417/16, 9 January 2018 |
Other sources:
Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Mission to Morocco, 4 August 2014, UN doc. A/HRC/27/48/Add.5
United Nations Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report on Morocco, adopted on 2 November 2016, UN doc. CCPR/C/MAR/CO/6
The US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2016, Morocco (released on 3 March 2017
Danish Immigration Service, Report on the “Risk of Double Jeopardy in Morocco”, 21 March 2017