CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 septembre 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 56 September 2003 N. v. Finland (dec.) - 38885/02 Decision 23.9.2003 [Section IV] Article 3 Expulsion Threatened deportation to the Democratic Republic of Congo: admissible The applicant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, claims to have worked as a soldier in former President Mobutu’s “Division Spécial Présidentielle” (DSP), which was entrusted with the protection of Mobutu, his family and property. He fled the country when Mobutu’s regime was overthrown by Kabila. He arrived in Finland in July 1998 and requested asylum. The Directorate of Immigration found the applicant’s submissions inconsistent, did not believe that he faced a real risk and ordered his deportation. The Administrative Court rejected the appeal lodged by the applicant as he had not submitted any evidence to substantiate his allegations and his identity had not been established. A date for the applicant’s deportation was fixed, but the Government decided not to deport him following the Court’s interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The applicant asserts that if he is deported, besides the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3, there would be an interference with his private and family life, as he has a common-law wife – whose asylum application is pending – and a child born in Finland. Admissible under Articles 3 and 8.   © 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