Case Law

30 January 2017 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Refugees - Voluntary repatriation | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

30 January 2017 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Refugees - Voluntary repatriation | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

5 April 2013 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Court | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Asylum-seekers - Criminal justice - Entry / Exit - False documents - Passports - Smuggling of persons - Travel documents | Countries: Afghanistan - Finland

(1) Article 223 of the Uzbekistan Criminal Code (UCC) makes it an offence for a citizen to leave the country without permission – what is described as "illegal exit abroad". The basic offence of "illegal exit abroad" is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment for between three to five years. (2) In specified aggravating circumstances (a physical breach of the border, conspiracy, or the exit abroad of a state employee requiring special permission) the penalty for "illegal exit abroad" under Article 223 of the UCC rises to five to ten years' imprisonment. It is unclear from the evidence before us whether a fine will also be imposed. (3) Uzbek citizens are required to obtain an exit permit prior to leaving the country. However, Annex 1 to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 8, issued on 06.01.1995, provides that no penalties apply to someone who returns to Uzbekistan after the expiry of their exit permit. Normally, exit permits can be renewed at the Uzbekistan Embassy in the third country where an Uzbek citizen is living. (4) There are cases of Uzbek nationals, having left the country lawfully, nevertheless being charged with "illegal exit abroad" and prosecuted under Article 223 following their return to Uzbekistan with expired exit permits. However, those cases involved pre-existing interest by the authorities, association with the events in Andijan in 2005, association with Islamic militant activity, travel to countries other than that authorised in the exit permit or other such distinguishing features. (5) There is no evidence of prosecutions under Article 223 of the UCC of ordinary returning Uzbek citizens with expired exit permits, including failed asylum seekers, where such individuals had no particular profile or distinguishing features which would otherwise have led to any adverse interest in them. It has therefore not been established that such returnees are at real risk of persecution on return. (6) The ill-treatment of detainees is a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan, for which there is no concrete evidence of any fundamental improvement in recent years (Ergashev v Russia [2009] ECtHR 12106/09 ECHR 2249). Therefore, where an Uzbek citizen is likely to be detained on return, Article 3 ECHR will be engaged. (7) The country guidance given by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in OM (Returning citizens, minorities, religion) Uzbekistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00045 is re-affirmed.

23 November 2012 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Immigration Detention | Countries: Uzbekistan

23 November 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Entry / Exit - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Regional instruments | Countries: Ukraine - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Appeal from Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Mandamus Appeal), Appelate Side. Memorandum of Appeal from original Order No. 301 of 2006.

2006 | Judicial Body: India: High Courts | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Pre-trial detention | Countries: India - Myanmar

30 September 2003 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Entry / Exit - Immigration law - Passports - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Cuba - New Zealand