CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 juillet 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 226 February 2019 Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania (relinquishment) - 80982/12   Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 Removal decided by court on the basis of classified documents concerning national security that were not disclosed to the applicants: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber The applicants are two Pakistani nationals. At the material time they were living in Romania on student visas. In December 2012 the public prosecutor initiated proceedings against them seeking to have them declared undesirable in Romania on the grounds of serious indications that they were engaged in activities which posed a threat to national security. The public prosecutor’s office produced a document classified as “secret” from the national intelligence agency (SDI). The Court of Appeal upheld the public prosecutor’s request. In its decision, it referred to the counter-terrorism legislation and the prohibition of support for terrorism-related activities. The higher court justified the refusal to provide the SDI note to the applicants by the danger of disclosing the evidence. It took the view that the procedural safeguards required by Article   1 of Protocol No.   7 had been sufficiently ensured by the fact that the courts had established the merits of the allegation that there were indications of their intention to engage in activities capable of undermining national security. The applicants were deported. Before the European Court, the applicants complain that they were not informed of the exact reasons for their removal. On 27   February 2019, the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes