CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 108 May 2008 Ramzy v. the Netherlands - 25424/05 Decision 27.5.2008 [Section III] Article 3 Expulsion Risk of ill-treatment in case of expulsion to Algeria of a terrorist suspect: admissible   Article 13 Effective remedy Denial of access to intelligence that had resulted in an asylum seeker’s exclusion on national security grounds: admissible   The applicant is an Algerian national known to the Netherlands authorities under the name of “Mohammed Ramzy” as well as several aliases. Since 1998 he has been residing illegally in the Netherlands after two successive asylum requests were rejected. In 2002 the applicant and eleven others were arrested on suspicion of membership of an active Islamic extremist support network in the Netherlands. These suspicions were based on intelligence reports by the Netherlands national security agency. The network was believed to have links with the Algerian Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat (GSPC) and al-Qaeda and to be involved in the recruitment and preparation of young men in the Netherlands for Islamic extremist terrorist acts abroad (in Kashmir, Afghanistan and Iraq). In 2003, in the criminal proceedings known as “the Rotterdam jihad trial”, the applicant was acquitted as the trial court concluded that the intelligence reports could not be used in evidence, given the absence of an effective opportunity for the defence to verify their content and completeness. Consequently, the applicant was released from pre-trial detention. Immediately after his release, he filed a third asylum request, claiming that he would be exposed in Algeria to a risk of ill-treatment for his suspected involvement with Islamic extremist terrorism, as the jihad trial had been given wide coverage in the international media. His request was rejected, as the alleged risk was deemed too general and unsubstantiated. In the meantime, in 2004 the Minister for Immigration and Integration issued an exclusion order against the applicant for posing a threat to national security. He unsuccessfully challenged both decisions before the courts. On 15   July 2005, at the applicant’s request, the European Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant should not be removed to Algeria until further notice. Subsequently, he was released from detention. His request for access to the material on which the intelligence report was based, was rejected, as he had failed to submit a valid identity document. The judicial proceedings on this issue are still pending. In 2005 the Algerian authorities advised in reply to a request from their Dutch counterparts that the applicant was known in Algeria under another name, and issued a laissez-passer in that name. To date, it has not been used by the Netherlands authorities. In 2006 the Netherlands national security agency stated in a new report that the applicant had stayed in Algeria after July 2004. The applicant contested that statement. Referring to various reports on Algeria, he complains that, if he is expelled there, he will be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention. He further complains under Article   13 in conjunction with Article   3 that, as he has not been granted access to the material on which the national security agency relied in their reports, he has been denied the right to effective adversarial proceedings and therefore does not have an effective remedy. Admissible .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes