CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 septembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 78 September 2005 Saadi v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 13229/03 Decision 27.9.2005 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1-f Prevent unauthorised entry into country Detention of an asylum seeker at Heathrow airport: admissible   Article 5-2 Information on reasons for arrest Iraqi asylum seeker told that the reasons for his detention were that he met the Government’s policy criteria to be detained: admissible   The applicant fled Iraq and upon his arrival at Heathrow airport on 30 December 2000 applied for asylum. He was granted temporary admission, but asked to report back at the airport. On 2 January 2001 he was detained and transferred to Oakington Reception Centre. His legal representative was told on 5 January that the reason for the detention was that the applicant was an Iraqi who met the criteria to be detained at Oakington. His asylum application was initially rejected, but in appeal proceedings the adjudicator found that the applicant was a refugee and granted him asylum. The applicant applied for permission for judicial review of the detention, claiming that it had been unlawful under domestic law and under Article 5 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords held that detention had been lawful under domestic law. They also found it had been compatible with Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention for the purpose of “preventing unauthorised entry”. Admissible under Article 5.   © 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