CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s1F6D0C51 { width:96.88%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s817AE20C { width:20.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s41BB1054 { width:20.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s48CF9875 { width:31.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADA854A5 { width:20.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s19CF1168 { width:20.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF5D8EC33 { width:31.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 19 July 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22225/19 K.O. and Others against the United Kingdom lodged on 18 April 2019 communicated on 30 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants, who were born between 2005 and 2013 and are British citizens, challenge a deportation order issued against their father (K.O.) after he was sentenced to twenty   months’ imprisonment following his conviction for conspiring dishonestly to make false representations. Although the First Tier Tribunal allowed K.O.’s appeal against the deportation order, the Upper Tribunal set that decision aside. Applying section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended) and paragraph 399 of the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended) (see Unuane v. the United Kingdom , no.   80343/17, 24 November 2020), the Upper Tribunal found that it would not be “unduly harsh” for the applicants to remain in the United Kingdom with their mother if their father was deported. In doing so, the judge took into account the criminality of K.O. but indicated that he would have reached a different view if he were required to focus solely on the position of the children. K.O.’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and then by the Supreme Court. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, for example, Boultif v.   Switzerland , no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001 IX and Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006 XII), would the deportation of K.O. to Nigeria constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for the applicants’ family life enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention? APPENDIX List of applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. K.O. 2005 British Barking 2. B.O. 2009 British Barking 3. J.O. 2013 British Barking 4. J.I.O. 2011 British Barking