Communicated cases against Serbia, the Netherlands, Croatia and the United Kingdom

Date: 
Friday, November 16, 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has recently communicated four asylum-related cases.

  • M.H. against Serbia (application no 62410/17): The case concerns the rejection of the asylum request of a Syrian national, who had travelled to Serbia through Greece and FYROM. The application was rejected as it was found inadmissible due to Serbia’s inclusion of FYROM in the list of safe third countries. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights that he would be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment in case of a forced removal to FYROM, as well as to the risk of chain refoulement to Greece and further to Turkey and Syria. The applicant also stresses that he has no effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in breach of Article 13.

  • N.K. against the Netherlands (application no 58572/14): The applicant is a rejected asylum-seeker from Sudan, claiming he was a member of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), a Sudanese opposition movement, and that he has been active for this movement both in Sudan and in the Netherlands. The applicant complains that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Sudan.

  • DARAIBOU against Croatia (application no 84523/17): The applicant complains under the substantive and procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that the State is responsible for not preventing a life-threatening situation (fire in a detention centre for asylum‑seekers) owing to which he suffered grave bodily injuries and that no effective investigation has been carried out in that respect.

  • A.A. and F.A. against the United Kingdom (application no 6796/16): The case concerns the refusal to grant leave to remain to two applicants with medical conditions, a HIV-positive mother and a child with an autistic disorder diagnosis. Appeal against the decisions to remove them was not allowed. The applicants complain that their removal to Nigeria would violate their right to respect for private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, and that there was a lack of effective remedies. They also complain the “best interests” of the child would render the removal of the child a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private life.


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.