CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 12 July 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 49259/18 M.J. against the Netherlands lodged on 15 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application is lodged by an Afghan man from the Alishang district of Laghman province, born in 1997. In 2015 he applied for asylum in the Netherlands. The Dutch authorities refused asylum. They believed that he had had problems with the Taliban, but considered that an internal flight alternative was available in Kabul, Afghanistan. The applicant complains under Article   3 that no internal flight alternative exists in Kabul. He further complains under Article 13 that he had not had 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 submissions and current country information, more specifically from UNHCR and EASO, are there substantial grounds for believing that the applicant will face a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention if expelled to Afghanistan?   2.     Was the applicant’s request for asylum examined in conformity with the procedural obligations stemming from Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy with regard to his complaint under Article 3?