Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
UK - Court of Appeal, 23 January 2003, FP (Iran) & MB (Libya) v Secretary of state for the Home Department, [2007] EWCA Civ 13
Country of applicant: Iran, Libya
Fairness requires that an applicant in a protection claim is not bound by the procedural error of his legal representative. Procedural rules should not result in unfairness to asylum seekers.
Date of decision: 23-01-2003
Greece - Council of State, 15 September 2000, 495/2000
Country of applicant: Turkey

Application to give suspensive effect to a decision by the Minister for Public Order 

This case concerned deportation of a recognized refugee (Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) after a conviction for a criminal offence under common law. 

Immediate deportation would expose the applicant to the risk of suffering irreparable harm in the event that his application for annulment is successful. Because of the severity of that harm, moves to deport him must be given suspensive effect until there has been a final decision on his application for annulment, even though the decision to deport him was motivated by the protection of public order.

The case also considered ending the applicant's detention andreturning the refugee residence permit, which had been withdrawn, to the applicant. 

Date of decision: 15-09-2000
ECtHR - T.I. v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 43844/98, Decision as to the Admissibility, 7 March 2000
Country of applicant: Sri Lanka

The case involved a Sri Lankan asylum seeker whose application was rejected in Germany, and upon seeking asylum in the UK, was rejected on the basis of the Dublin Convention and that his application corresponded to Germany. The Court found no breach of a Convention obligation from the UK by its decision to remove him to Germany.               

Date of decision: 07-03-2000
ECtHR - Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996
Country of applicant: India, United Kingdom

This case involved the UK’s attempted deportation of an Indian citizen and leader of the Sikh separatist movement who lived in the UK and was allegedly a national security threat. Because of the risk of ill-treatment, the Court found the UK would breach Art. 3 if he were deported to India, in conjunction with a violation of Art. 13. Because he was not able to review the lawfulness of his prolonged detention, the Court also found a violation of Art. 5 (4). 

Date of decision: 15-11-1996