FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
|
|
- Joseph Robbins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4539/11 by Nkechi Clareth AMEH and Others against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 August 2011 as a Chamber composed of: Lech Garlicki, President, Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2011, Having regard to the Acting President s decision to apply Rule 39 on 1 February 2011, Having regard to the Chamber s subsequent decision to lift the interim measure under Rule 39 on 15 March Having deliberated, decides as follows:
2 2 AMEH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION THE FACTS 1. The applicants, Ms Nkechi Clareth Ameh ( the first applicant ) and her three children, are Nigerian nationals who were born in 1976, 2003, 2005 and 2007 respectively and live in Sunderland. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3. The first applicant entered the United Kingdom on 17 December 2005 on a valid visit visa, accompanied by her two eldest children. The first applicant remained in the United Kingdom following the expiry of her visa and did not come to the attention of the authorities until she claimed asylum in July The basis of her claim was that she had married in 2002 and, when her eldest daughter was born in 2003, her husband s family had raised the idea of having both her and the first applicant herself circumcised. Both the applicant and her husband had been averse to the idea. However, the applicant and her husband had separated when she was pregnant with her son, who was born in 2005, and their marriage ended definitively in Her third child, a girl born in the United Kingdom in 2007, was the result of a brief reconciliation with her husband. The applicant claimed to fear that, without the support of her husband, she would not be able to withstand his family s pressure to have her two daughters, and herself, circumcised. 5. Her asylum claim was refused on 15 April The Secretary of State noted that the applicant was no longer in contact with her husband or his family. The applicant had remained in Nigeria following her first daughter s birth, and even after separating from her husband, indicating that she did not genuinely fear her in-laws. Her last noted address had been in Lagos, which was not where her in-laws lived. It was therefore believed that she could return to that city or relocate elsewhere in Nigeria and thus avoid her ex-husband s family, who would not be aware of her return, given their lack of contact. Furthermore, the background evidence indicated that the Nigerian authorities were taking steps to combat female genital mutilation ( FGM ) and had successfully outlawed the practice in several states. There were a number of women s non-governmental organisations that could offer support to the first applicant. It was therefore considered that there was a sufficiency of protection available to her. She also had family, including two brothers, living in Nigeria and would therefore have a support network. Her claim was certified as clearly unfounded, meaning that she could not appeal against the refusal of asylum from within the United Kingdom. 6. The first applicant was advised by her legal representatives that any application for judicial review of the decision to certify her claim had a very
3 AMEH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 3 poor chance of succeeding, as her claim was weak. Since her case was publicly funded, her representatives could not bring such an application on her behalf given that there was no reasonable prospect of success. As a result of the withdrawal of publicly funded legal assistance, the first applicant did not seek judicial review of the certification of her asylum claim as clearly unfounded. 7. Directions were set for the applicants removal on 4 February On 20 January 2011, the applicants sought an interim measure from this Court in order to prevent their removal. On 1 February 2011, the Acting President of the Fourth Section, to which the case had been allocated, indicated to the Government of the United Kingdom that the applicants should not be removed until further notice. Upon further consideration of the case, the Section on 15 March 2011 lifted the interim measure previously indicated. The applicants notified the Court on 25 March 2011 that, notwithstanding the lifting of the interim measure under Rule 39, they wished to continue with their complaints under the Convention. B. Relevant domestic law 8. Section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, provides that, where a person has made an asylum or human rights claim and the Secretary of State has certified that that claim is clearly unfounded, the person may not bring an appeal whilst still in the United Kingdom. A claim will be certified as clearly unfounded only where, taking the claim at its highest, on any legitimate view it could not succeed. 9. The only means by which a person can challenge the certification of their claim under section 94(2) is by judicial review. The test that will be applied by the courts is whether, based on the material before the Secretary of State, there is a realistic prospect that an Immigration Judge, applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, would uphold an appeal (see R (on the application of YH) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 116, paragraphs 20-21). COMPLAINT 10. The applicants complained that their removal to Nigeria would amount to a violation of Article 3. They claim that the females of the family are at risk of FGM at the hands of the family of the first applicant s exhusband. The first applicant also claims that she has a heart condition for which she is receiving treatment in the United Kingdom, and should not therefore be removed to Nigeria.
4 4 AMEH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION THE LAW 11. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 12. The Court recalls its constant case law that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no /99, 54, ECHR ). However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case, Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (Saadi v. Italy [GC], no /06, 125, ECHR ). The assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces such a real risk inevitably requires that the Court assess the conditions in the receiving country against the standards of Article 3 of the Convention (Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos /99 and 46951/99, 67, ECHR 2005-I). These standards imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he or she will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case (Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no /99, 60, ECHR 2001-II). 13. In the present case, the Court observes, as did the Secretary of State in refusing the first applicant s asylum claim, that there are elements of the case which tend to indicate that the applicants alleged fear of return to Nigeria is neither genuine nor objectively well-founded. Such elements include the fact that the first applicant entered the United Kingdom as a visitor and did not mention any fear of returning to Nigeria. She subsequently remained in the United Kingdom after the expiry of her visit visa but did not claim asylum, and claimed asylum only after being in the United Kingdom for over three years. The Court takes the view that Contracting States are entitled to find that a failure to claim asylum as soon as reasonably possible is not generally compatible with the actions of a genuine asylum seeker, who has fled their own country due to a real fear. Moreover, as was noted by the Secretary of State, the first applicant remained in Nigeria for some months even after separating from her husband, indicating that she did not feel herself or her children to be at real risk from her in-laws even without the support of her husband. Again, the Court finds that such behaviour is relevant and should be taken into
5 AMEH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 5 consideration when determining whether a person has a genuine fear in their country of origin. 14. Even leaving aside the question of whether the applicant has a genuine subjective fear, a matter upon which the factors noted above cast some doubt, the Court finds that the Secretary of State was entitled to find that any fear she might have was not objectively well-founded, for the reasons set out in the refusal letter of 15 April Specifically, that the first applicant was not in contact with her ex-husband s family and there was therefore no reason that they would know of the applicants return to Nigeria; that the applicants could relocate to a part of the country far from where the first applicant s in-laws lived and thus avoid them; and that there was protection and support available to the applicants, if needed, from the Nigerian authorities, various women s non-governmental organisations, and the first applicant s family. The Court therefore concludes that the first applicant s asylum claim was refused for sound and convincing reasons, which this Court has been given no reason to doubt. It follows that the applicants have not established that they face a real risk of ill-treatment if returned to Nigeria. 15. Turning to the issue of the applicant s alleged heart condition, the Court recalls the Grand Chamber s findings in the case of N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no /05, 42-45, 27 May 2008, that the decision to remove an alien who is suffering from a serious mental or physical illness to a country where the facilities for the treatment of that illness are inferior to those available in the Contracting State may raise an issue under Article 3, but only in a very exceptional case, where the humanitarian grounds against the removal are compelling. The Grand Chamber upheld in N. the very high threshold for Article 3 in the context of ill-health that had been set out in D. v. the United Kingdom, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III. 16. The Court observes that while the first applicant stated in the course of her asylum claim that she was suffering from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a heart condition, she did not submit any medical evidence to permit this element of her claim to be assessed. The Secretary of State found in any event that there were adequate healthcare facilities available in Nigeria and that therefore the first applicant did not meet the high threshold for health claims under Article The first applicant has submitted to the Court a letter dated 7 May 2009 from a consultant cardiologist. The letter states that the applicant was taking beta blockers and had complained of some side effects, including dizziness, tiredness and breathlessness when she exerted herself. It stated that she was, however, still capable of working as a hairdresser. The applicant had a further appointment booked for August There has been no further or more recent medical evidence submitted to the Court which would give a clearer picture of the first applicant s current state of
6 6 AMEH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION health. Nor has any evidence been submitted regarding the availability of treatment for the first applicant s condition in Nigeria. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to question the background evidence cited by the Secretary of State in the letter refusing the first applicant s asylum claim, to the effect that there is adequate healthcare available in Nigeria, though it may not be of the same standard as in the United Kingdom. Given that there is no evidence to indicate that the first applicant s state of health is grave; that it is likely to worsen should she be removed to Nigeria; or that she would be unable to access suitable treatment there, the Court finds that she has not established that her case discloses very exceptional circumstances, as found to be present in D., cited above. Her case does not therefore meet the high threshold of Article For all of the foregoing reasons, the applicants complaint under Article 3 is manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Lawrence Early Registrar Lech Garlicki President
FOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 498/10 Piotr CIOK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Päivi Hirvelä, President,
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 32971/08 by Phrooghosadat AYATOLLAHI and Hojy Bahroutz HOSSEINZADEH against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 13630/16 M.R. and Others against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 May 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CZARNOWSKI v. POLAND. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CZARNOWSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 28586/03) JUDGMENT This version was
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF VASSALLO v. MALTA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT. (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 6 November 2012 FINAL 06/02/2013
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF VASSALLO v. MALTA (Application no. 57862/09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 6 November 2012 FINAL 06/02/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GARZIČIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GARZIČIĆ v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 17931/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GISZCZAK v. POLAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GISZCZAK v. POLAND (Application no. 40195/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17575/06 by Albert GRIGORIAN
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54041/14 G.H. against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President, András
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 40772/98 by Anna PANČENKO against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 28 October 1999 as a Chamber composed
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 20159/16 F.M. and Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a committee composed of: Paul Lemmens,
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51428/10 A.M.E. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall,
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43700/07 by Haroutioun HARUTIOENYAN and Others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 25748/15 Kemal HAMESEVIC against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 May 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Robert Spano, President,
More informationConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
United Nations CEDAW/C/38/D/10/2005 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Distr.: General 12 June 2007 Original: English Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11987/11 Abdul Wahab KHAN against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Ineta
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 15636/16 N.A. and Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President,
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 40229/98 by A.G. and Others
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 September 2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 56328/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 September 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 56619/15 Rasmus MALVER against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 May 2018 as a Committee composed of: Ledi Bianku, President,
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 46553/99 by S.C.C. against Sweden
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF A.G.A.M. v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 June 2013
Side 1 af 13 FIFTH SECTION CASE OF A.G.A.M. v. SWEDEN (Application no. 71680/10 (/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"appno":["71680/10"]})) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 June 2013 This judgment will become final in
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21563/08 N.F. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President,
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 24211/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 35424/97 by Seljvije DELJIJAJ
More informationShifting Standards: The Dublin Regulation and Italy
139 Shifting Standards: The Dublin Regulation and Italy ANDREW T. RUBIN * Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. 1 I.! INTRODUCTION On April 2, 2013, the European
More informationA Guide to Applying to the European Court of Human Rights when fair trial rights have been violated October 2012
A Guide to Applying to the European Court of Human Rights when fair trial rights have been violated October 2012 This Guide is available online at www.fairtrials.net/publications/training/ecthrguide About
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 May 2018
THIRD SECTION CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32248/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 23052/04 by August KOLK Application
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF HAJDUOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA. (Application no. 2660/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 30 November 2010 FINAL 28/02/2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF HAJDUOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 2660/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 November 2010 FINAL 28/02/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KARAOĞLAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KARAOĞLAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 60161/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 48205/13 Guy BOLEK and others against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41092/06 by Susanne MATTENKLOTT
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 January 2011 FINAL 11/04/2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 40385/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 January 2011 FINAL 11/04/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GATT v. MALTA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 27 July 2010 FINAL 27/10/2010
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GATT v. MALTA (Application no. 28221/08) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 27 July 2010 FINAL 27/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 39022/97 by Peter O ROURKE against
More informationChapter 2 European International Human Rights Court System
Chapter 2 European International Human Rights Court System 2.1 The Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights located in Strasbourg, France was established
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF Y.F. v. TURKEY (Application no. 24209/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 July 2003
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 June 2012 FINAL 05/09/2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND (Application no. 34721/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 June 2012 FINAL 05/09/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationCommunication 3/2016: I.A.M v Denmark Julia Sloth-Nielsen, Professor of Children s Rights and the Developing World, Leiden University
Communication 3/2016: I.A.M v Denmark Julia Sloth-Nielsen, Professor of Children s Rights and the Developing World, Leiden University Date of publication: 18-07.2018 Key words: Female Genital Mutilation
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY (Application no. 59601/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF NUNEZ v. NORWAY. (Application no /09)
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF NUNEZ v. NORWAY (Application no. 55597/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 June 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16472/04 by Ruslan Anatoliyovych ULYANOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 53235/11 and 8784/13 Silvia BRÁS DE MATOS against Portugal and Sandra Maria DA COSTA TORREZÃO against Portugal The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA. (Applications nos /13 and 71974/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA (Applications nos. 71024/13 and 71974/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 October 2017 This judgment is final in but it may be subject to editorial revision.
More informationFORMER SECTION IV. CASE OF N.B. v. SLOVAKIA. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 12 June 2012
FORMER SECTION IV CASE OF N.B. v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 29518/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 June 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationFINAL 20/03/2012 FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 48839/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 December 2011 FINAL 20/03/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FORMER THIRD SECTION. CASE OF DEL SOL v. FRANCE. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FORMER THIRD SECTION CASE OF DEL SOL v. FRANCE (Application no. 46800/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18215/06 by GREENPEACE E.V. and others against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 May 2009 as a
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF FRÖDINGE GRUS & ÅKERI AB v. SWEDEN (Application no. 44830/98) JUDGMENT (Friendly
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1722/10 Alem BIRAGA and others against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 April 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Dean Spielmann,
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 78375/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 May 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GOGGINS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GOGGINS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 30089/04, 14449/06, 24968/07, 13870/08, 36363/08, 23499/09, 43852/09 and 64027/09) JUDGMENT (striking out) STRASBOURG
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 August 2012 FINAL 28/11/2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 37552/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 August 2012 FINAL 28/11/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 February 2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 15452/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationEuropean Court of Human Rights. Questions & Answers
European Court of Human Rights Questions & Answers Questions & Answers What is the European Court of Human Rights? These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court. The document
More informationTHE AIRE CENTRE Advice on Individual Rights in Europe
THE AIRE CENTRE Advice on Individual Rights in Europe Written Evidence of the AIRE Centre to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Violence against Women and Girls The AIRE Centre is a non-governmental
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE S PARTY v. MOLDOVA (No. 2) (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 February 2010 FINAL
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE S PARTY v. MOLDOVA (No. 2) (Application no. 25196/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 February 2010 FINAL 02/05/2010 This judgment has become final under Article
More informationBreach of Human Rights and S4
Breach of Human Rights and S4 April 2016 Factsheet 12 In this Factsheet: Breach of European Convention of Human Rights Is it Reasonable to Expect the Asylum- Seeker Leave the UK? Out of Time Appeals to
More informationCHAPTER 420 REFUGEES ACT
REFUGEES [CAP. 420. 1 CHAPTER 420 REFUGEES ACT AN ACT to make provisions relating to and establishing procedures with regard to refugees and asylum seekers. ACT XX of 2000. 1st October, 2001 PART I General
More informationRegulations to the South African Refugees Act GOVERNMENT NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
Regulations to the South African Refugees Act GOVERNMENT NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS No. R 366 6 April 2000 REFUGEES ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 130 OF 1998) The Minister of Home Affairs has, in terms of
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DACIA S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DACIA S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 3052/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2) (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2) (Application no. 22432/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 April 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45073/07 by Aurelijus BERŽINIS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 July 2016
THIRD SECTION CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 14348/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 July 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 32745/17 Bluma Zipa PERELMAN and Alain Michel PERELMAN against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 June 2017 as a Chamber composed
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 July 2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 41140/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 July 2012 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IVANOV v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 1 In
More informationPress release issued by the Registrar. Grand Chamber judgment 1. Gäfgen v. Germany (application no /05)
Press release issued by the Registrar Grand Chamber judgment 1 439 01.06.2010 Gäfgen v. Germany (application no. 22978/05) POLICE THREAT TO USE VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILD ABDUCTION SUSPECT AMOUNTED TO ILL-TREATMENT
More informationIN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT GIVEN FOLLOWING HEARING
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT GIVEN FOLLOWING HEARING R (on the application of Robinson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (paragraph 353 Waqar applied) IJR [2016] UKUT 00133(IAC)
More informationNIGERIA ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS HANDLING: STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
NIGERIA ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS HANDLING: STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES In exercise of the Powers to make Regulations conferred by Section 96 (2) (c) & (d) of the Electric Power
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28923/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 July
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 October 2018 On 9 November Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 October 2018 On 9 November 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FINCH UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BISERICA ADEVĂRAT ORTODOXĂ DIN MOLDOVA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (Application
More informationProhibition of discrimination; best interests of the child; protection of the child against all forms of violence or ill treatment
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Distr.: General 8 March 2018 Original: English * Committee on the Rights of the Child Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GOŁAWSKI AND PISAREK v. POLAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 May 2014
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GOŁAWSKI AND PISAREK v. POLAND (Application no. 32327/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 May 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. GOŁAWSKI AND PISAREK
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 1) (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 1) (Application no. 11956/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 23205/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationAnd RA (ANONYMITY ORDER MADE) ANONYMITY ORDER
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: VA / 00331 / 2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 May 2016 On 19 May 2016 Before: UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 73874/11 Mohammed ABUBEKER against Austria and Italy The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 June 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Isabelle
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 November 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Application no. 68811/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 November 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. DORIĆ v. BOSNIA
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 64372/11 Khalil NAZARI against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 September 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President,
More informationCCPR/C/117/D/2559/2015
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR/C/117/D/2559/2015 Distr.: General 2 August 2016 Original: English Advance unedited version Human Rights Committee Decision adopted
More informationKirsen Ferguson Head of European Operational Policy UK Border Agency By
Kirsen Ferguson Head of European Operational Policy UK Border Agency By e-mail: Kirsen.Ferguson@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk CC by e-mail: Serena Bryant, European Operational Policy Manager, UK Border Agency,
More informationRegarding Asylum Claims Made at Land Borders
INITIALED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (reverse order of governments in U.S. original) Regarding Asylum Claims Made at Land Borders The
More informationAswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Aswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 2 November 2011 Determination Promulgated
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF MANOLE AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA. (Application no /02)
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MANOLE AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 13936/02) JUDGMENT (just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 13 July 2010 FINAL 13/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 31246/06 by Zinaida Ivanovna
More informationTHE PRIME MINISTER ASYLUM ACT
THE PRIME MINISTER declares the complete wording of Act No. 325/1999 Coll., on asylum and on modification of Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended by later regulations,
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 September 2017
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 44533/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 September 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO JUDGMENT
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 45971/08 Ahmet SAVASCI against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 March 2013 as a Committee composed of: Boštjan M. Zupančič,
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28268/95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF O'DONOGHUE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF O'DONOGHUE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 34848/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 December 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND (Application no. 37868/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 December 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. T.H. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationEUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Press release issued by the Registrar. CHAMBER JUDGMENT STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 069 15.2.2005 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 32463/06 by Herbert BACHOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Chamber
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA. (Application no /08)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 48099/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM. (Application no /99) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM (Application no. 50615/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 November
More informationPeople s Republic of China
Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Compilation Report - Universal Periodic Review: People s Republic of China I. BACKGROUND
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF O'DONOGHUE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF O'DONOGHUE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 34848/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 December 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More information