Case Law
|
The Queen on the application of:1) Hemmati; 2)Khalili;3) Abdulkadir; 4) Mohammed (Appellants) - and - The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
and Between The Queen on the application of SS (Respondent) -and- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
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 |
|
S.F. and Others v. Bulgaria
7 December 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Police - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Bulgaria - Iraq - Switzerland |
|
Vasileva v. Denmark
25 September 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Bulgaria - Denmark |
