CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 February 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37241/21 S.H. against Malta lodged on 28 July 2021 communicated on 20 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the procedure and the refusal of the applicant’s asylum requests. The applicant was a journalist in Bangladesh, who claims to have been the subject of persecution after he observed electoral irregularities carried out by the Awami league (currently the governing party) in the 2018 elections. In particular he claims that he and his family had been beaten and threatened as a result of his reporting and that no action was taken by the local authorities in fear of the ruling party. The applicant, thus, fears return to Bangladesh and complains that the Maltese authorities failed to properly assess his claims, in particular, the risk he, as a journalist, would face upon being returned to Bangladesh, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He further considers that he had no effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, in so far as the asylum procedure was lacking in various respects namely, he had no access to relevant information and legal services; there had been excessive delays in the decision-making process; there had been no serious examination of the merits and the assessment of the risk incurred; he had not been informed of the relevant decisions while he was in detention, nor had there been any interpretation of such decisions, and he had had no access to a proper appeal procedure. He further noted that the reviews by the International Appeals Tribunal and the Immigration Appeals Board had not been effective remedies in his case and that constitutional redress proceedings were also not effective in so far as they had no suspensive effect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Inter alia , before deciding on the rejection of his claim for asylum and therefore his expulsion, did the authorities consider the applicant’s claim that he, as a journalist, would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment if returned to Bangladesh?   2.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention if the expulsion order were enforced?