CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s4CADCC17 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } THIRD SECTION Application no. 10260/13 J. N. against the Netherlands lodged on 11 February 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr J. N. is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“the DRC”). He was born in 1993 and is currently staying in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr W.H.M. Ummels, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In June 2012 he applied for asylum in the Netherlands, submitting that he belongs to the Banyamulenge (Tutsi) community and hails from South-Kivu. By decision of June 2012 the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum Policy ( Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel ; “the Minister”) rejected the asylum application. The applicant’s account was partly considered as lacking credibility. As to the credible part of the applicant’s claims, the Minister referred to the Netherlands official report of June 2012 ( Algemeen Ambtsbericht Congo ) and considered that the overall situation in the DRC was not such as to warrant granting refugee status to the applicant. In July 2012, the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague, sitting in Zwolle, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, considering that, although the situation in South-Kivu fell within the scope of Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (“the Qualification Directive”), a safe relocation alternative existed in Kinshasa. In August 2012 the applicant lodged a fresh asylum request, which was rejected by the Minister in September 2012. Referring to the Netherlands official report of June 2012, the Minister held that the articles and reports relied on by the applicant did not lead to a different conclusion as to the lack of credibility of his account and his possibility of relocating elsewhere in the DRC. In January 2013, the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Middelburg, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that, although the overall situation in the DRC had worsened since the decision of June 2012 on the applicant’s first asylum request, it could not be said that there was systematic discrimination of Banyamulenge in the DRC and the applicant still had an alternative relocation possibility outside the Kivu area. In February 2013 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In April 2013, the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the Netherlands Government that the applicant should not be expelled to the DRC pending the proceedings before the Court. COMPLAINT 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 Kinshasa (DRC). QUESTION In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were expelled to Kinshasa (DRC)?