CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 mai 2007

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 97 May 2007   Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 30164/06 Decision 15.5.2007 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-3 Abuse of the right of petition Applicants' reliance on forged court documents: inadmissible   The applicants, a married Iranian couple, unsuccessfully sought asylum in the Netherlands, this having been refused in the final instance by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. As regards the copy of a judgment of the Teheran Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal of 2002, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division held that the copy submitted by the applicants did not constitute a “new fact” warranting a reconsideration of the applicants' asylum claim as its authenticity could not be determined by the Netherlands Royal Constabulary. The applicants for their part had not demonstrated by means of evidence and arguments that it was an authentic Iranian document and had given contradictory accounts about the manner in which it had been obtained. Before the European Court the applicants complained that they had been denied asylum in the Netherlands and that their removal to Iran would be contrary to Article   3 of the Convention. In the ensuing proceedings the respondent Government were requested to draw up an official report on, inter alia , the authenticity of the 2002 judgment. The respondent Government later informed the Court that, according to the findings of an inquiry carried out in Iran, the judgment was not an authentic document. Inadmissible : The Court noted that the applicants had relied on a summons issued by the Shiraz Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal as well as on a judgment given by the Teheran Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal. According to the findings of inquiries carried out in Iran by the Netherlands authorities, these two documents had been forged and the applicants had not disputed those findings. An application may be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue facts.   © 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