CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 avril 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 22 April 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49773/15 by S.A. against the Netherlands lodged on 9 October 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant entered the Netherlands on a Chadian passport. He claimed that he was a Sudanese national and belonged to the Tunjur (a non-Arab ethnic group). The applicant’s asylum applications were rejected by the domestic authorities as his claimed nationality and identity were disbelieved. The applicant is currently residing in Utrecht and is represented before the Court by Mr G.J. Dijkman, a lawyer practising in Utrecht. 2.     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, because of his origins and ethnicity (non-Arab Darfuri), the risk of forced recruitment, and the general humanitarian situation in Sudan as a result of the conflict in Darfur. The applicant further complains under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy for the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   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? Were the applicant’s aforementioned claims subjected to rigorous scrutiny at domestic level, or are the Government of the view that this was not necessary for the reason that they believe it will be possible for the applicant to settle in Chad?   2.     On what grounds did the Chadian authorities refuse to issue a laissez-passer to the applicant? Have they confirmed or denied the applicant’s disputed Chadian nationality? 3.     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?