CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14319/17 X against the Netherlands lodged on 21 February 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant is a Moroccan national, who is currently staying in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr   P.J.   Schüller, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. The applicant entered the Netherlands in 2012 on a tourist visa, but overstayed. In 2014 he was arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence and placed in police custody. He was acquitted by a first-instance court, but convicted on appeal. An appeal in cassation ( cassatie ) with the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ), lodged by the applicant, is still pending. After the applicant’s detention on remand came to an end, he was placed in immigration detention ( vreemdelingendetentie ). On the same day he filed an asylum request, which was rejected. The applicant complains that his removal to Morocco will result in a violation of Article 2 and/or 3 of the Convention. QUESTION In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if his expulsion to Morocco would be enforced?