full screen background image

Events

21 September 2017 - October 5 & 6, 2017: ‘International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict’ Colloquium on ‘International Inve ... +++ 21 September 2017 - 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: ... +++ 29 April 2017 - Summer School on European Business Law, Corfu 2017, 24-28 Ιουλίου Το “Summer School” αποτε ... +++ 3 May 2016 - Εκδηλώσεις Τομέα Διεθνών Σπουδών – Κατεύθυνση Ι.Δ.Δ. ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ Ο Καθηγ ... +++ 30 April 2016 - 9.5.2016: Ημερίδα – Το Πρόσωπο και η Οικογένεια στο Δίκαιο και την Κοινωνία   Το Ελληνικό Τμή ... +++ 30 March 2016 - 14th ICC Miami Conference on International Arbitration This conference provides an indispe ... +++

*Law of Aliens

Published on May 16th, 2018 | by Georgia Archonti

0

ECtHR – A.S. v. France (application no. 46240/15) [no violation of Article 3 ECHR; violation of Article 34 ECHR], 19 April 2018

On 19 April 2018, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in case A.S. v. France (application no. 46240/16), which concerned a Moroccan national who acquired French nationality in 2002 and who was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in 2013 for involvement in a conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts in France and in other countries. He was deprived of his French nationality and submitted an asylum application claiming to fear being ill-treated if returned to Morocco, which was rejected. On 22 September 2015, the applicant was served with an expulsion order and sent to Morocco, despite an interim measure issued by the ECtHR that same day requesting the French government not to remove the applicant until 25 September. Before the ECtHR, the applicant claimed, inter alia, that his removal violated his rights under Article 3 ECHR due to the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment by the Moroccan authorities and due to the detention conditions there; and that his removal in breach of the Court’s interim measure violated Article 34 ECHR.

The ECtHR found that the nature of the applicant’s conviction in the context of combating terrorism explained why he would be subject to control and supervisory measures on his return to Morocco, without such measures amounting ipso facto to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Court  also  noted  that  the  applicant  had  not  presented  any  evidence  to  prove  that  the  persons presented  as  his  accomplices  who  had  been  prosecuted  in  Morocco  had  sustained  inhuman  or degrading treatment. It also highlighted that Morocco had taken action to prevent such treatment. Therefore, the ECtHR ruled that there had been no violation of Article 3 ECHR.

For further information click here….





About the Author


Back to Top ↑