CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 janvier 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   53 25.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   29 January 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Tuesday 29 January 2008 at 9.30 a.m. (local time) to deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Saadi v. the United Kingdom (application no. 13229/03).   The press release and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Saadi v. the United Kingdom   The applicant, Shayan Baram Saadi, is a 30-year-old Iraqi national who lives in London.   Mr. Saadi, an Iraqi Kurd and a member of the Iraqi Workers’ Communist Party, fled from Iraq when, in the course of his duties as a hospital doctor, he treated and facilitated the escape of three fellow party members who had been injured in an attack.   He arrived at London Heathrow Airport on 30 December 2000 where he immediately claimed asylum. The immigration officer contacted Oakington Reception Centre, a new detention facility for asylum seekers considered unlikely to abscond and to whom a “fast-track” procedure could be applied.   As there was no available space at Oakington, the applicant was initially granted “temporary admission”. He was taken into detention at Oakington on 2 January 2001.   The applicant was initially given a standard form which did not make clear that the reason for his detention was that the fact-track procedure was being applied to his asylum claim.   On 5 January 2001 the applicant’s representative telephoned the Chief Immigration Officer and was told that the reason for the detention was that the applicant was an Iraqi who met the criteria to be detained at Oakington.   The applicant’s asylum claim was initially refused on 8 January 2001 and he was formally refused leave to enter the UK. He was released the next day. He appealed against the Home Office decision and was subsequently granted asylum on 14 January 2003.   The applicant, together with three other Kurdish Iraqi detainees who had been held at Oakington, applied for permission for judicial review of their detention claiming that it was unlawful under domestic law and under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords held that the detention was lawful in domestic law. In connection with Article 5 they each held that the detention was for the purpose of deciding whether to authorise entry and that the detention did not have to be “necessary” to be compatible with Article 5. They further maintained that the detention was “to prevent unauthorised entry” and that the measure was not disproportionate. The House of Lords also found that, given the high number of interviews every day (up to 150), detention was necessary for the speed and efficiency of the system.   The applicant complains about his detention at Oakington and about the fact that he was given no reasons for it. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 2 (right to be informed promptly of reasons for arrest), and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   On 10   October 2006 the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 [1] (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 11 December 2006 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request.     ***   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.