Afghanistan

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Court found in particular that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty for their first month in the centre, until 21 April 2016 when it became a semi-open centre. The Court was nevertheless of the view that the one-month period of detention, whose aim had been to guarantee the possibility of removing the applicants under the EU-Turkey Declaration, was not arbitrary and could not be regarded as “unlawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f). However, the applicants had not been appropriately informed about the reasons for their arrest or the remedies available in order to challenge that detention.

25 January 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece

10 February 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Terrorism | Countries: Afghanistan - Romania

20 November 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Illegal entry - Prison or detention conditions - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

12 August 2014 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Circuit Court | Topic(s): Hazara - Prison or detention conditions - Shia - Terrorism - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia

9 October 2013 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Immigration Detention - Non-refoulement - Prison or detention conditions - Regional instruments | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Hungary - Switzerland

5 April 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece

25 June 2010 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements - Combatants / Former combatants - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Pre-trial detention - Prison or detention conditions - Terrorism | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Petitions for habeas corpus.

2 April 2009 | Judicial Body: United States District Courts | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Habeas corpus - Jurisdiction - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Terrorism | Countries: United Arab Emirates - United States of America

The BIA found that past persecution suffered by the applicant was so severe that asylum should be granted notwithstanding the change of circumstances in the country of origin.

19 May 1995 | Judicial Body: United States Board of Immigration Appeals | Countries: Afghanistan - United States of America