Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
ECtHR finds no risk of ill-treatment in the event of returning rejected asylum applicant to Sudan

Input Provided By
EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
European Convention on Human Rights;
Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], S.A. v The Netherlands, 49773/15, CE:ECHR:2020:0602JUD004977315, 02 June 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Related cases:

The applicant, S.A., who claimed to be a Sudanese national lodged two applications for asylum in the Netherlands, both rejected due to his lack of credibility regarding the country of origin. He claimed that if returned to Sudan he would be at risk of persecution as he belonged to the Tunjur (a non-Arab ethnic group associated with Darfuri rebel groups).

On 9 October 2015 the applicant was informed about his removal which he challenged before the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice. Before the Regional Court he also requested the suspension of his removal. On the basis of an interim measure granted under Rule 39 by the ECtHR, the applicant’s removal was stayed.

The applicant lodged a third asylum application, which was also rejected due to his lack of credibility with regard to his country of origin.

Before the ECtHR the applicant claimed that in the event of his removal he would be at risk of forced recruitment and persecution on account of his ethnic group and also due to the conflict in Darfur.

The Court found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It held that “unlike the situation in the cases of N.A. v. Switzerland and A.I. v. Switzerland […], there is no evidence before the Court of the applicant’s involvement in any Sudanese political opposition or Sudanese opposition group abroad which would consequently cause him to fear ill-treatment by the current authorities upon his return to Sudan.” Thus, there are no substantial grounds that upon removal to Sudan the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment.

The Court also concluded that there was no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention as the applicant had an effective remedy against the decisions rejecting his asylum claims.

Country of Decision
Council of Europe
Court Name
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
Case Number
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Assessment of Application
Effective remedy