Curricula - Knowledge - Navigation
ECtHR, XX v. France, No. 46240/15, 2018
  • 2018
  • France
Topics
Public security
Legal bases
European Convention on Human Rights
Courts
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
Laws
Torture, degrading and inhuman and treatment Right of individual petition
Facts

The applicant, a Moroccan national, was convicted in France of conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts, and who had previously been deprived of his French nationality for the same reason. The present case concerned his expulsion to Morocco. The applicant alleged in particular that he had been expelled to Morocco despite the fact that in that country he had risked being subjected to ill-treatment. He also submitted that by expelling him to Morocco in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court, France had failed meeting its obligation under Article 34.

Legal grounds

Article 3 of the ECHR; Article 34 of ECHR.

Findings

The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 3, noting in particular that Morocco had adopted general measures to prevent risks of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, despite his release and his contacts with a lawyer, the applicant had failed to present any evidence, such as medical certificates, to show that his conditions of detention in Morocco had exceeded the requisite severity threshold for a violation of Article 3. The Court held, however, that there had been a violation of Article 34, and noted in particular that the expulsion order had not been served on the applicant until more than one month after the decision had been taken, and that he had been immediately taken to the airport for his expulsion. The applicant had therefore not had sufficient time to request that the Court suspend the decision, even though the French authorities had previously taken a long time for similar requests. Moreover, the expulsion had rendered nugatory any finding of a violation of the Convention because the applicant had been expelled to a country which was not bound by the latter and in which he claimed that he was liable to be subjected to treatment which it prohibited.