Information Note on the Court\u2019s case-law 223
\nNovember 2018<\/p>\n
M.N. and Others v. Belgium (relinquishment)<\/strong> – 3599\/18<\/p>\n Article 1<\/strong> Refusal to grant visa applications made from the territory of a non-member State on the basis of a risk of ill-treatment: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber<\/p>\n Article 3<\/strong> Refusal to grant visa applications made from the territory of a non-member State on the basis of a risk of ill-treatment: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber<\/p>\n Syrian nationals living in Aleppo, the applicants contacted the Belgian Consulate in Beirut in August 2016 requesting short-stay visas on humanitarian grounds, with a view to applying for asylum on arrival in Belgium. Their requests were refused by the Aliens Office (for a similar factual situation, see the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in X and X v. \u00c9tat belge, C-638\/16 PPU, 8 March 2017, Information Note 205). Their subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.<\/p>\n Before the European Court, the applicants allege that they were exposed to the risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and did not have an effective remedy in this respect; they consider that certain court decisions initially delivered in their favour remained unjustifiably unenforced. The application was communicated to the respondent Government under Article 1 of the Convention with regard to the scope of Belgium\u2019s jurisdiction and under Articles 3, 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicants\u2019 complaints.<\/p>\n On 20 November 2018 the Chamber of the Court to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.<\/p>\n
\nJurisdiction of States<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nPositive obligations<\/strong><\/p>\n