CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFBC16547 { width:30.68pt; display:inline-block } .sA2917653 { width:193.95pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF88AB0A7 { height:15.75pt } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s46049353 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .sD99782C2 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sDDD834DF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC7065C4F { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2C2A4500 { height:31.5pt } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6A269875 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s4B1F13C8 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sAE1E17E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s7C18482A { padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8276/07 Ali Muhamad MUSA against the United Kingdom and 175 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26   June 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Nicolas Bratza,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the decisions to apply Rule 39 in these cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Each of the applicants has been served with removal directions to Mogadishu. Following an application to the Court, interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were granted to prevent their removal. On 28 June 2011 the Court gave its judgment in Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011, in which it gave detailed guidance on the compatibility of the removal of Somali nationals to Mogadishu with the respondent State’s obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. On 10 February 2012 the Government wrote to the Court setting out the following proposals: “Cases pending before the Court The Government consider that where an application challenging removal to Somalia (but not Somaliland or Puntland) is pending before the Court it would be appropriate to consider whether the reasoning of the Court in the Sufi and Elmi judgment, together with a more recent country guidance case in the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal (AMM & Others) (Conflict; Humanitarian Crisis; Returnees; FGM) Somalia CG[2011] UKUT 445 (IAC) (28 November 2011)) have any impact on the decision to remove that individual. In light of the significant numbers of such cases pending before the Court, the Government propose that the following procedure be put in place to accomplish this. The Court would inform the applicants contesting removal to Somalia and in respect of whom the Court has previously applied Rule 39 measures, that the following procedure would apply to their case. The Court would lift the Rule 39 measure in each such case in order to allow the procedure to be followed; and would inform the applicant that any new application for Rule 39 would not normally be considered until such time as the procedure and any consequent judicial remedies, including application for judicial review, had been exhausted; The Court would notify the Government of those applicants to whom it had written in these terms; Upon receipt of such notification, UKBA would write to the applicant or his or her representative, inviting them to submit further representations in their case; UKBA would assess each such case in light of any representations submitted, applying new guidance that takes account both of the Sufi and Elmi judgments and the AMM decision of the domestic courts; If UKBA conclude that in light of the new guidance and any representations made, removal should not be ordered, appropriate leave to remain in the United Kingdom will be granted; if in light of the new guidance removal to Somalia is appropriate, the application will be refused and new removal directions may be set; In the event of a decision to refuse an application, the applicant will have the following remedies. If the representations submitted are considered to amount to a fresh claim, any decision to refuse the application will, in most cases, attract an in-country right of appeal to the AIT. If the representations are considered to amount to further submissions, any decision to reject those submissions would not attract a right of appeal. It would, however, be open to the applicant to apply to the High Court to have the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department judicially reviewed. An application for judicial review would normally suspend removal; and the High Court would consider any review on the basis of the current state of the law including the Court’s judgments in Sufi and Elmi and the AMM decision. There is also a further option to apply to the High Court for any injunction to prevent removal. The Government’s assumption is that, in light of the judgment in Sufi and Elmi and the AMM judgment, Rule 39 measures will be lifted in respect of those applications currently pending before the Court that challenge removal to Somalia; and these applications will be declared inadmissible or otherwise disposed of by the Court. The Government are confident these arrangements would ensure that the appropriate domestic authorities have an opportunity to reconsider the cases of those whose claims currently pending before the Court might be affected by the reasoning set out in the Court’s judgment and would provide such applicants with appropriate judicial remedies in the domestic courts. Cases not currently pending before the Court The Government also propose that, before setting removal directions for removal to Somalia (but not Somaliland or Puntland) in any future case (i.e. including cases not currently pending before the Court), the case will be assessed against the new guidance, taking account of both Sufi and Elmi and AMM . It will, of course, still be open to the individual applicants to submit further representations on the basis of Sufi and Elmi and AMM if they wish to do so. Remedies set out in paragraph (f) above would apply to any individual whose applications were rejected applying the new guidance, i.e. they would have the opportunity either to appeal against the decision to the AIT or to apply for judicial review in the High Court. The Court can therefore be confident that in any case in which removal directions for Somalia have been set after 22 February 2012, UKBA will have considered the case against the new guidance. Furthermore the Court can also be confident that a judicial remedy would be available to any such applicant. In these circumstances, the Government will respectfully request the Court to require any new applicants to make fresh representations to UKBA if they have not already done so and to exhaust the possibility of a domestic appeal and/or judicial review before the Court considers granting a request for Rule 39 to be applied in their cases so as to halt removal to Somalia.” In a decision dated 10 April 2012, the Court accepted the Government’s proposal and notified the applicants accordingly. COMPLAINTS The applicants all complained under Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention about their removal to Mogadishu. THE LAW Article 37 of the Convention provides: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or (b)     the matter has been resolved; or (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires. 2.     The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.” In order to determine whether an application should be struck out of the list pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) the Court must consider whether the circumstances lead it to conclude that “for any other reason....it is no longer justified to continue the examination of [it]”. The Court recalls that it enjoys a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied upon in a strike out application on this basis; however, it also recalls that such grounds must reside in the particular circumstances of each case ( Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France [GC], (dec.), no.   76642/01, § 37, ECHR 2006 ...; M.H. and A.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 38267/07 and 14293/07, 16 December 2008). In the Court’s view, the particular circumstances of these applications are such that it is no longer justified to continue their examination. The applicants will now benefit from the undertakings of the Government set out in the letter of 10 February 2012. The practical effect of these undertakings is that they will not be returned to Mogadishu without a full examination of their claims by the Government of the United Kingdom and, moreover, they will have the opportunity to lodge new applications with the Court (including the possibility of requesting an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) should that need arise. In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the cases. Accordingly, it is appropriate to lift the interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; and Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President   Appendix   Application No. Case Title Intro. Date 8276/07 MUSA v. the United Kingdom 19/02/2007 12835/07 NOOR v. the United Kingdom 22/03/2007 26814/07 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 18/06/2007 31363/07 OSMAN v. the United Kingdom 20/07/2007 31669/07 ODOWA v. the United Kingdom 25/07/2007 41294/07 YASSIN v. the United Kingdom 24/07/2007 42673/07 BASHIR v. the United Kingdom 01/10/2007 44132/07 MATAN v. the United Kingdom 09/10/2007 49978/07 IBRAHIM v. the United Kingdom 19/11/2007 50373/07 SAID v. the United Kingdom 20/11/2007 51121/07 WARSAME v. the United Kingdom 22/11/2007 52672/07 MAREY v. the United Kingdom 30/11/2007 52876/07 MUSSA v. the United Kingdom 30/11/2007 52894/07 ABUKAR v. the United Kingdom 30/11/2007 52897/07 ABDI v. the United Kingdom 30/11/2007 52991/07 MAINA v. the United Kingdom 03/12/2007 53417/07 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 04/12/2007 53557/07 ABDULLAHI v. the United Kingdom 06/12/2007 53769/07 FARAH v. the United Kingdom 07/12/2007 54029/07 ABDULLAHI v. the United Kingdom 10/12/2007 56585/07 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 21/12/2007 32/08 SHIDANE v. the United Kingdom 23/12/2007 41/08 ABUKAR v. the United Kingdom 24/12/2007 633/08 ISMAIL v. the United Kingdom 07/01/2008 702/08 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 07/01/2008 1723/08 SHARIF v. the United Kingdom 10/01/2008 1812/08 MOHAMED v. the United Kingdom 27/12/2007 1839/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 21/12/2007 2451/08 SABRIYE v. the United Kingdom 05/12/2007 3160/08 OMAR v. the United Kingdom 18/01/2008 3162/08 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 18/01/2008 4633/08 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 20/01/2008 5874/08 IBRAHIM v. the United Kingdom 02/02/2008 6209/08 NOOR v. the United Kingdom 11/01/2008 7209/08 OMAR v. the United Kingdom 31/01/2008 7293/08 OMAR v. the United Kingdom 11/02/2008 7790/08 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 14/02/2008 8194/08 BILE v. the United Kingdom 18/02/2008 8210/08 ABDIRASHID v. the United Kingdom 28/01/2008 8272/08 SHARIF v. the United Kingdom 18/02/2008 8279/08 HIRAB (aka HARIB) v. the United Kingdom 18/02/2008 8563/08 SHARIF v. the United Kingdom 19/02/2008 9255/08 ILQAYTE v. the United Kingdom 22/02/2008 10196/08 HURSHE v. the United Kingdom 06/02/2008 10722/08 YASIN v. the United Kingdom 04/03/2008 10924/08 YOUSUF v. the United Kingdom 05/03/2008 11735/08 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 10/03/2008 12151/08 FARAH v. the United Kingdom 11/03/2008 14159/08 DUALEH v. the United Kingdom 25/03/2008 16517/08 DALAB v. the United Kingdom 04/04/2008 16681/08 ALLOUE v. the United Kingdom 07/04/2008 16700/08 SIDOW v. the United Kingdom 07/04/2008 16737/08 MOHAMED v. the United Kingdom 07/04/2008 16813/08 MOHAMED v. the United Kingdom 07/04/2008 16816/08 ABDALLA v. the United Kingdom 07/04/2008 18474/08 GUTALE v. the United Kingdom 15/04/2008 19474/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 19/04/2008 19497/08 SAEED v. the United Kingdom 19/04/2008 19554/08 HUSSEIN v. the United Kingdom 21/04/2008 20782/08 JIBRIL v. the United Kingdom 28/04/2008 21894/08 BARROW v. the United Kingdom 08/05/2008 21911/08 FARAH v. the United Kingdom 07/05/2008 22853/08 KULAH v. the United Kingdom 18/05/2008 23027/08 ABDI v. the United Kingdom 19/05/2008 23078/08 SHARIF v. the United Kingdom 19/05/2008 23103/08 ABDI v. the United Kingdom 19/05/2008 23470/08 WARSAME v. the United Kingdom 21/05/2008 24141/08 SHARIF ABDI v. the United Kingdom 24/05/2008 24743/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 27/05/2008 25732/08 DIINI v. the United Kingdom 30/05/2008 25965/08 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 02/06/2008 26650/08 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 02/06/2008 26958/08 AFRAH v. the United Kingdom 06/06/2008 28348/08 ERIBAY v. the United Kingdom 13/06/2008 28785/08 IBRAHIM v. the United Kingdom 16/06/2008 29328/08 ISMAIL v. the United Kingdom 18/06/2008 31137/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 25/06/2008 31367/08 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 30/06/2008 32767/08 FARAH v. the United Kingdom 10/07/2008 32995/08 SHEIKH v. the United Kingdom 12/07/2008 33243/08 OMAR v. the United Kingdom 10/07/2008 34084/08 SHARIF v. the United Kingdom 15/07/2008 35490/08 DEENI v. the United Kingdom 28/07/2008 35801/08 MOHAMUD v. the United Kingdom 21/07/2008 35994/08 NUR v. the United Kingdom 20/07/2008 36596/08 ABDI v. the United Kingdom 31/07/2008 37039/08 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 24/07/2008 37813/08 ISMAN v. the United Kingdom 07/08/2008 37894/08 HERSI v. the United Kingdom 11/08/2008 38260/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 11/08/2008 39333/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 13/08/2008 40622/08 HUSSEIN v. the United Kingdom 25/08/2008 41960/08 MOHAMED v. the United Kingdom 02/09/2008 42086/08 OSMAN v. the United Kingdom 04/09/2008 43602/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 15/09/2008 44512/08 KOLON v. the United Kingdom 16/09/2008 44839/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 20/09/2008 44848/08 DULEH v. the United Kingdom 15/09/2008 51018/08 MOHAMMED v. the United Kingdom 24/10/2008 52561/08 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 02/11/2008 54973/08 MOHAMMAD v. the United Kingdom 14/11/2008 57787/08 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 01/12/2008 58620/08 ABDIRAHMAN v. the United Kingdom 28/11/2008 60015/08 HILOWLE v. the United Kingdom 11/12/2008 60583/08 ALI v. the United Kingdom 01/12/2008 272/09 MOHAMED v. the United Kingdom 30/12/2008 587/09 KHAURE v. the United Kingdom 05/01/2009 2107/09 ELMI v. the United Kingdom 15/01/2009 4042/09 DAHIR v. the United Kingdom 22/01/2009 4061/09 AWEYS v. the United Kingdom 22/01/2009 4068/09 ABDI v. the United Kingdom 22/01/2009 4225/09 RASHEED v. the United Kingdom 23/01/2009 5570/09 DIISHRE v. the United Kingdom 26/01/2009 6600/09 OLOL v. the United Kingdom 04/02/2009 7526/09 MOHAMUD v. the United Kingdom 09/02/2009 7634/09 OSMAN v. the United Kingdom 04/02/2009 8892/09 MOHAMED v. the United Kingdom 13/02/2009 9006/09 SHEIKH v. the United Kingdom 14/02/2009 9227/09 ABDULLAHI v. the United Kingdom 16/02/2009 10618/09 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 23/02/2009 10987/09 AHMED v. the United Kingdom 24/02/2009 11879/09 MOHAMED v. the United Kingdom 02/03/2009 12659/09 ABDURAHMAN v. the United Kingdom 06/03/2009 12882/09 ABDI v. the United Kingdom 08/03/2009 13633/09 MOHAMMED v. the United Kingdom 12/03/2009 14648/09 SHARIF v. the United Kingdom 17/03/2009 15902/09 ALI v. the United Kingdom 23/03/2009 17081/09 AHAMAD v. the United Kingdom 29/03/2009 19184/09 FARAH v. the United Kingdom 13/04/2009 20031/09 HASHI v. the United Kingdom 17/04/2009 21356/09 ABDULLAHI v. the United Kingdom 23/04/2009 23197/09 MOHAMMED v. the United Kingdom 02/05/2009 26023/09 MUQTAAR v. the United Kingdom 15/05/2009 28567/09 MUSSE v. the United Kingdom 29/05/2009 28632/09 UKUROW v. the United Kingdom 30/05/2009 29350/09 HASAN v. the United Kingdom 04/06/2009 32656/09 GULED v. the United Kingdom 19/06/2009 32683/09 SABRIYE v. the United Kingdom 19/06/2009 33342/09 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 23/06/2009 34542/09 ALI v. the United Kingdom 29/06/2009 35298/09 MUSE v. the United Kingdom 01/07/2009 39063/09 ABDI v. the United Kingdom 23/07/2009 39169/09 SUFI v. the United Kingdom 21/07/2009 40033/09 RABBI v. the United Kingdom 23/07/2009 42876/09 SHUKRI v. the United Kingdom 08/08/2009 42963/09 MUGHAAN v. the United Kingdom 10/08/2009 43328/09 OMAR v. the United Kingdom 12/08/2009 43771/09 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 13/08/2009 44786/09 OMAR v. the United Kingdom 18/08/2009 46347/09 SAEED v. the United Kingdom 26/08/2009 47122/09 OMAR v. the United Kingdom 01/09/2009 47620/09 SAYID v. the United Kingdom 04/09/2009 49394/09 MAHAMED v. the United Kingdom 12/09/2009 50203/09 MANE v. the United Kingdom 17/09/2009 53851/09 NOOR v. the United Kingdom 09/10/2009 55564/09 OMAR (AKA HUSSEIN) v. the United Kingdom 15/10/2009 56241/09 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 21/10/2009 58043/09 OMAR CHARD v. the United Kingdom 30/10/2009 7991/10 CADE v. the United Kingdom 08/02/2010 10944/10 IBRAHIM v. the United Kingdom 24/02/2010 18164/10 SULTAN v. the United Kingdom 31/03/2010 23731/10 FARAH (AKA HASSAN MOHAMED AHMED) v. the United Kingdom 28/04/2010 24730/10 ISAAK v. the United Kingdom 03/05/2010 28186/10 KHALAF v. the United Kingdom 22/05/2010 28997/10 MIRREH v. the United Kingdom 27/05/2010 31161/10 SULIEMAN-HUSSEIN v. the United Kingdom 07/06/2010 33534/10 SHARIF v. the United Kingdom 16/06/2010 37923/10 SHEIKNUR v. the United Kingdom 08/07/2010 56505/10 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 01/10/2010 75490/10 YUSUF v. the United Kingdom 28/12/2010 5752/11 MOHAMMED v. the United Kingdom 26/01/2011 15421/11 MOHAMMED v. the United Kingdom 09/03/2011 20912/11 ALI v. the United Kingdom 01/04/2011 27135/11 ISMAIL v. the United Kingdom 03/05/2011 69581/11 HASSAN v. the United Kingdom 10/11/2011 2091/12 A.M.A. v. the United Kingdom 10/01/2012