CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s278B579D { width:278.5pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s827E2BE9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   19 October 2009   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53926/09 by G.G.S. against the Netherlands lodged on 10 October 2009   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, who is currently detained in aliens’ detention in the Netherlands, is an Afghan national whose application for asylum was refused after Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was held against him. In addition, an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) was imposed on him. He is represented before the Court by Mr J.M. Walls, a lawyer practising in Dordrecht. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will be subjected to treatment prohibited by that provision if he were expelled to Afghanistan. He further complains that, on this point, he did not have an effective remedy as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. He also complains that his detention is in breach of Article 5 and that his expulsion from the Netherlands would be contrary to his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.