CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 novembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. November 1996 Nsona v. Netherlands - 23366/94 Judgment 28.11.1996 Article 3 Expulsion Refusal by Netherlands authorities to grant one of the applicants (a nine-year-old girl) access to Netherlands territory and removal of that applicant to Zaïre, separation of the two applicants: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   General principles Principles emerging from Court's case-law reiterated. B.   The refusal to allow the child access to Netherlands territory The Netherlands authorities were in principle entitled to refuse the child access to the country provided that such refusal was not inconsistent with the obligations of the respondent State under the Convention. C.   The way in which the child's removal was effected Separation of applicants cannot be imputed to the respondent State. On the facts of the case, the way in which removal was effected did not constitute treatment of such a nature as to make it "inhuman or degrading" as these expressions are to be understood in the context of Article 3. D.   The risk to which the child was exposed upon return in Zaïre Given the fact that arrangements were made — although by Swissair and not by the Netherlands Government — for applicant to be met at Kinshasa Airport and that these proved adequate, there is insufficient ground for reproaching the Netherlands Government for not having acted with due diligence. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government's preliminary objection (loss of victim status) Decisions of national authorities put an end to the situation complained of by the applicants - however, it does not appear that these decisions were intended to put an end to, and afford redress for, any violation of the Convention - they did not reverse or compensate for any of the measures which led to the applicants' separation - far from acknowledging a violation, the Government maintained before the Court that no breach of Article 8 had taken place. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint Netherlands authorities cannot be blamed, once deceit was discovered, for refusing to accept allegations unsupported by evidence   - no "interference" can be imputed to respondent State. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Applicants stated that they wished to confine the scope of the case to the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 8 - neither the Commission nor the respondent Government offered any argument on the question whether there has been a violation of Article 13. Conclusion : not necessary to decide this issue (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes