Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Council of Europe
Country of Decision : Council of Europe
Court Name : CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECHR]
Date of decision : 02/06/2020
Type : Judgment
ECLI : CE:ECHR:2020:0602JUD004977315
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : 49773/15

S.A. v The Netherlands

ECtHR finds no risk of ill-treatment in the event of returning rejected asylum applicant to Sudan

The applicant, S.A., who claimed to be a Sudanese national lodged two applications for asylum in the Netherlands, both rejected due to his lack of credibility regarding the country of origin. He claimed that if returned to Sudan he would be at risk of persecution as he belonged to the Tunjur (a non-Arab ethnic group associated with Darfuri rebel groups).

On 9 October 2015 the applicant was informed about his removal which he challenged before the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice. Before the Regional Court he also requested the suspension of his removal. On the basis of an interim measure granted under Rule 39 by the ECtHR, the applicant’s removal was stayed.

The applicant lodged a third asylum application, which was also rejected due to his lack of credibility with regard to his country of origin.

Before the ECtHR the applicant claimed that in the event of his removal he would be at risk of forced recruitment and persecution on account of his ethnic group and also due to the conflict in Darfur.

The Court found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It held that “unlike the situation in the cases of N.A. v. Switzerland and A.I. v. Switzerland […], there is no evidence before the Court of the applicant’s involvement in any Sudanese political opposition or Sudanese opposition group abroad which would consequently cause him to fear ill-treatment by the current authorities upon his return to Sudan.” Thus, there are no substantial grounds that upon removal to Sudan the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment.

The Court also concluded that there was no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention as the applicant had an effective remedy against the decisions rejecting his asylum claims.

Assessment of Application; Credibility; Effective remedy; Non-refoulement; Return/Removal/Deportation;

European Convention on Human Rights;

EASO Courts and Tribunals Network

Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights [ECHR], S.A. v The Netherlands, 49773/15, CE:ECHR:2020:0602JUD004977315, 02 June 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.