full screen background image


2 August 2019 - Concours de droit comparé Société de législation comparée ... +++ 25 July 2019 - Formation: Après-midi d’étude – Blockchain et contrats intelligents Editions Larcier, ici Formation: Ap ... +++ 4 June 2019 - Formation Lexing – Marketing et RGPD Editions Larcier, ici   Format ... +++ 19 April 2019 - Société de législation comparée – Concours de droit comparé Revue internationale de droit compa ... +++ 11 April 2019 - Formation: Colloque DCCR – Droit de la consommation et protection des données à caractère personnel Revue de droit international et de ... +++ 7 March 2019 - 6ème Atelier de droit comparé – 22 mars 2019 Revue internationale de droit compa ... +++

*Law of Aliens

Published on May 16th, 2018 | by Georgia Archonti


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 ↑