ECtHR - Communicated cases against the Netherlands

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has recently communicated two cases against the Netherlands:

  • Azerkane v. the Netherlands (application no. 3138/16): concerning the withdrawal of the applicant’s residence permit and the imposition of a ten-year entry ban on him after he had been convicted of a number of criminal offences. The applicant, who is a Moroccan national, was born in the Netherlands and had lawful residence in that country ever since. In January 2018, he was placed in detention with a view to his expulsion. He complains before the ECtHR that the withdrawal of his permit and the imposition of the entry ban violated his right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR.
  • A.J. and others v. the Netherlands (application no. 82077/17): regarding an Iraqi mother and her two children, whose asylum applications were rejected by the Dutch authorities. The applicants’ husband and father is a stateless Palestinian, who is currently residing in Syria. The applicants allege that their removal to Baghdad would violate their rights under Article 3 ECHR. They also allege a breach of Article 13 ECHR in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR.
  • Alissa v. Romania (application no. 48780/17): concerning two Syrian nationals who arrived in Romania in May 2017 and were placed in the Regional Centre for Accommodation and Processing of Asylum Requests in Bucharest. They complain under Article 3 ECHR with regard to the conditions in that centre and under Article 5 ECHR 5(1) as they allege that their impossibility to leave the centre during the day amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty.
  • M.F. v. France (application no. 15794/17): regarding a Moroccan national who had lived in France since he was two months old and who was detained under terrorism-related charges. His asylum application was rejected. The applicant was removed to Morocco and placed in a psychiatric hospital. He complains under Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR that he did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge his removal to Morocco.

Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update.


This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.



Effective access to procedures
Effective remedy (right to)
Family unity (right to)
Material reception conditions
Reception conditions