CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 décembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)228 [1] A.A against United Kingdom Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No. 8000/08, judgment of 20 September 2011, final on 20 December 2011)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)889E );   Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)889E );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Report   Name of Case – AA v The United Kingdom (application no. 8000/08); judgment final on 19/12/2011) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 3 May 2012   Case Summary   1.   Case description:   The case involved a 25 year old Nigerian national, AA, who was convicted of rape on 27 September 2002, aged 15. He was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl, and sentenced to four years in a Young Offenders Institution (YOI). He did not appeal against his sentence or conviction. On 7 July 2003, whilst in detention, AA was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) following an application made by his mother on behalf of her dependents, including AA. A notice of intention of deportation was issued to AA on 8 September 2003. The case was pursued until his appeal rights against the decision to deport were exhausted on 25 January 2008. AA made an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 15 February 2008.   AA argued that his deportation constitutes a violation of his right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). AA was born in Nigeria   in 1986 and arrived in the UK with valid entry clearance to join his mother when he was 13 years old.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on private life grounds because AA has made commendable efforts to rehabilitate himself over a seven year period and that, in these circumstances, the UK Government would be required to provide further support for the contention that AA would cause future disorder or engage in criminal activities such as to render his deportation necessary. It was determined that no evidence was put forward by the UK Government to support such a contention.   Individual Measures   2.   Just satisfaction :   AA made no claim for damages as part of just satisfaction and so no amount was awarded. However the Court awarded the sum of EUR 4,000 for legal costs and expenses. This has been paid, evidence supplied.   3.   Individual measures :   The Government has taken the following individual measures. Deportation action is no longer being pursued. As the appellant has previously been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the United Kingdom, he will retain that status.   The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.   General Measures   4.   General measures :   The Government considers no general measures to be necessary because the Court held that the interference with Article 8 was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. The specific facts of the case led the Court to conclude that deportation to Nigeria would be disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime.   5.   Publication :   The judgment has been published in, a number of sources which includes the following:   A.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 8000/08 [2011] ECHR 1345 (20 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1345.html   1 COR – One Crown Office Row- Human Rights & Public Law Update A.A v United Kingdom- 8000/08 [2011] ECHR 1345 Rosalind English 21 September 2011: http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=1441   Immigration Law Bulletin- Issue 245-26 September 2011- Published Monday, 26 September 2011: http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/bulletins/category/bulletin_detail.cfm?iBulletinID=655   6.   Dissemination :   The Government considers it unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the case is confined to its own specific facts and does not give rise to any policy changes.   7.   State of execution of judgment:   The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.