Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 114
December 2008
K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom - 32733/08
Decision 2.12.2008 [Section IV]
Article 3
Expulsion
Proposed removal of Iranian asylum seeker to Greece under the Dublin Regulation: inadmissible
The applicant, an Iranian national, sought asylum in the United Kingdom after arriving via Greece. His claim was refused on the grounds that under the Dublin Regulation (which determines responsibility for dealing with asylum applications among, inter alia, the EU Member States) it should have been made in Greece. Directions were given for the applicant's removal to Greece, but the applicant challenged these in the light of a position paper published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on 15 April 2008 which criticised certain aspects of reception procedures for Dublin returnees and advised EU Member States to refrain from returning asylum seekers to Greece under the Dublin Regulation until further notice. The applicant was refused permission to apply for judicial review, but his removal was deferred following a Rule 39 indication from the European Court. In subsequent correspondence concerning the number of Rule 39 requests the Court had received from asylum seekers in the same position as the applicant, the UK Government provided clarification on the procedure followed on removals to Greece. They explained that the Greek authorities did not in practice return asylum seekers to certain countries, including Iran, and that it was the UK Government's standard practice to seek express confirmation that the returnee would be able to submit an asylum application upon arrival in Greece should he or she wish to do so. A letter was also produced from the Greek Dublin Unit confirming that asylum applicants had a right of appeal against expulsion decisions and to “have a Rule 39 indication on their case”.
Inadmissible: The concerns expressed by the UNCHR, whose independence, reliability and objectivity were beyond doubt, could not, when translated into Convention terms, be relied upon to prevent the United Kingdom from removing the applicant to Greece. The reasons for this were as follows. Firstly, the evidence before the Court indicated that Greece was not currently removing people to the applicant's country of origin, Iran. Secondly, the presumption had to be that Greece would abide by its obligations under both the Dublin Regulation and Council Directives 2005/85/EC and 2003/9/EC which required it to adhere to minimum standards in asylum procedures and to provide minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. In that connection, a new legislative framework for asylum applicants had recently been introduced in Greece. Thirdly, there was nothing to suggest that returnees to Greece under the Dublin Regulation, including those whose asylum applications had been the subject of a final negative decision by the Greek authorities, had been, or might be, prevented from applying to the Court for an interim measure under Rule 39 on account of the timing of their onward removal or for any other reason. Accordingly, the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention arising out of his possible expulsion to Iran should be the subject of a Rule 39 application lodged with the Court against Greece following his return there, and not against the United Kingdom. Finally, while the objective information before the Court on conditions of detention in Greece was of some concern, for substantially the same reasons, any claim under the Convention arising from those conditions was to be pursued first with the Greek domestic authorities and thereafter in an application to the Court. The United Kingdom would not, therefore, breach its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention by removing the applicant to Greece: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy