CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 juillet 2000

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 20 July 2000 G.H.H. and Others v. Turkey - 43258/98 Judgment 11.7.2000 [Section I] Article 34 Victim Threat of expulsion: not necessary to examine Article 13 Effective remedy Effective remedy in respect of deportation: no violation Facts : The applicants are Iranian nationals. The first two applicants were anti-government activitists in Iran, where the first applicant claims to have been detained and ill-treated on several occasions. The applicants fled to Turkey, where the UN High Commissioner for Refugees rejected their requests to be recognised as refugees. A deportation order was served on them in August 1998 and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs again confirmed that they did not meet the criteria for refugee status. However, the UNHCR subsequently re-examined the applicants’ asylum request and, in the light of new evidence about the applicant’s association with other writers who had been murdered, it granted them refugee status. As a result, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs directed that the applicants should be allowed to remain in Turkey, on a humanitarian basis, until they could be resettled in a third country. The applicants settled in the USA in October 1999. Law : Articles 2, 3 and 8 - Given that the applicants’ fears about forced return to Iran have been removed, they can no longer claim to be victims. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). Article 13 - By the stage at which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for refugee status, they had not made out a claim under Article 3 which could be said to be arguable on the merits:   the UNHCR had rejected their claim and it was only when new evidence came to light that both it and the Ministry changed their view. In the absence of information about these developments, the authorities cannot be accused of having under-estimated the risk to the applicants. When the information did become available, the authorities allowed them to remain and from then on there was no risk of summary deportation and no issue arises from that date. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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