Case Law

The Court found in particular that Article 5 was applicable to the applicants’ case as their presence in the transit zone had not been voluntary; they had been left to their own devices for the entire period of their stay, which had lasted between five and 19 months depending on the applicant; there had been no realistic prospect of them being able to leave the zone; and the authorities had not adhered to the domestic legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers. Given the absence of a legal basis for their being confined to the transit zone, a situation made worse by them being impeded in accessing the asylum system, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 5 § 1. The conditions the applicants had lived in had also been appalling: they had had to sleep in the transit zone, a busy and constantly lit area, with no access to washing or cooking facilities. There had thus also been a breach of Article 3 as their treatment had been degrading.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Airports - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Transit | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic

(1) In Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Somalia) [2019] EWCA Civ 1345, the Court of Appeal has authoritatively decided that refugee status can be revoked on the basis that the refugee now has the ability to relocate internally within the country of their nationality or former habitual residence. The authoritative status of the Court of Appeal’s judgments in MS (Somalia) is not affected by the fact that counsel for MS conceded that internal relocation could in principle lead to cessation of refugee status. There is also nothing in the House of Lords’ opinions in R (Hoxha) v Special Adjudicator and Another [2005] UKHL 19 that compels a contrary conclusion to that reached by the Court of Appeal. (2) The conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 was that the country guidance in MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) did not include any finding that a person who finds themselves in an IDP camp is thereby likely to face Article 3 ECHR harm (having regard to the high threshold established by D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 43 and N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39). Although that conclusion may have been obiter, it was confirmed by Hamblen LJ in MS (Somalia). There is nothing in the country guidance in AA and Others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia [2011] UKUT 00445 (IAC) that requires a different view to be taken of the position of such a person. It will be an error of law for a judge to refuse to follow the Court of Appeal’s conclusion on this issue.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Deportation of girl to Somalia, where she would face an alleged risk of being forcefully subjected to female genital mutilation

25 January 2018 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Legal Instrument: 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Female genital mutilation (FGM) | Countries: Denmark - Somalia

9 October 2017 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Denmark - Italy - Somalia

11 April 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): False documents - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This case was referred to the Grand Chamber, decision was issued on 21 November 2019 confirming the Chamber Judgment

28 March 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic

2 March 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Refugee / Asylum law - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

21 February 2017 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Family reunification - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life | Countries: Austria - Somalia

9 February 2017 | Judicial Body: Kenya: High Court | Topic(s): Group / Prima facie determination - Refugee / Asylum law - Refugee camps - Refugees | Countries: Burundi - Congo, Democratic Republic of the - Eritrea - Ethiopia - Kenya - Rwanda - Somalia - South Sudan - Uganda

22 November 2016 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Malta - Somalia