CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s1026EC2D { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s651475FF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 22 December 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 46563/14 E.T. against the Netherlands lodged on 18 June 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS FACTS The applicant, Mr E.T., is a national of Sudan, born in 1977, and is currently staying in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Stoetzer-van Esch, a lawyer practising in Lent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 27 December 2009. The final negative decision on this application was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) on 3 June 2013. On 24 November 2012 the applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands for a second time. The final negative decision on this application was taken by the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague on 13 September 2013. On 9 December 2013 the applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands for a third time. The final negative decision on this application was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State on 4   February 2014. 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 to be expelled to Sudan. The applicant further complains under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy in Dutch national law in terms of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTION   1.     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 Sudan?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention?