Right to family life should not interfere with EU system for allocating asylum responsibility

24 October 2011 by

N.A. (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2011] EWCA Civ 1172 – read judgment 

This application raises a significant issue about the treatment of vulnerable asylum-seekers and their children following certification of their claim as clearly unfounded.

It concerned the interface between state authorities’  obligations under the EU system of determining responsibility for examining asylum claims under the Dublin II Regulation (2003/34/EC), on the one hand, and their obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights on the other. Although Convention rights theoretically form part of the “principles” of EU law, this case is a neat illustration of how the states’ duties under the two regimes are subtly different, and how attentive the courts have to be to the individual circumstances of the case.

The case

The facts can be stated briefly. The husband and wife claimants left Iran in 2009 and claimed asylum in Latvia before travelling on to the UK.  The Latvians accepted responsibility  under the Dublin II Regulation for processing the asylum claim. The couple however resisted removal to Latvia on the basis that their Convention rights would be violated. These claims were rejected and in May 2010 the claimant’s husband was removed to Latvia. By then, however, she was pregnant, and their daughter was born here. Her human rights claim accordingly therefore now included the wellbeing of the child, in addition to her own welfare under Article 3 and Article 8 of the Convention. Her psychiatrist adduced evidence of depression and possible suicide ideation if she were to be removed.

The judgment

Even so the court was not satisfied that conditions in Latvia would fall short of its obligations under the Minimum Standards Directive (2003/9/EC) for the reception of asylum seekers.  For the court to interfere with removal proceedings under the Dublin convention there must be reliable evidence that there is a high risk that an individual’s Article 3 or Article 8 rights will be violated in the primary state, which has initial responsibility for processing the asylum application under the Dublin II Regulation. In Sir Stephen Sedley’s view, that threshold had not been crossed. The evidence before him

describes a deeply troubled woman, concerned both for herself and for her child, who seeks asylum from the Iranian regime and is fearful of how Latvia will treat her, both as an asylum-seeker and as a patient in need of healthcare to enable her to care for her daughter and herself. But this court cannot act on those fears: they are taken to be answered by the international arrangements to which Latvia and the United Kingdom are parties.

The purpose of removal in a Dublin II case is not to enforce the departure of someone with no right to be here. It is simply to ensure that an asylum claim is dealt with by the member state in which the first landfall was made. The often powerful public interest in consistent immigration control presently reaches no further than this.

The application for judicial review was refused.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. Stephen says:

    Latvia is a signatory to the ECHR and so, logically at least, the woman should have no fear of being deported there. Her fears hence have no basis in fact. I hope she gets the help for her troubles she needs in Lativia.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: