[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 13229/03 [2007] ECHR 394 (16 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/394.html Cite as: [2007] ECHR 394

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

314

16.5.2007

Press release issued by the Registrar

GRAND CHAMBER HEARING
SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 16 May 2007 at 9 a.m., in the case of Saadi v. the United Kingdom (application no. 13229/03).

The applicant

The applicant, Shayan Baram Saadi, is a 30-year-old Iraqi national who lives in London.

Summary of the facts

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 that provision. 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.

Complaints

The applicant complained about his detention at Oakington and about the fact that he was given no reasons for it. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 2 (everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him), and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.

Procedure

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 April 2003 and declared admissible on 27 September 2005.

In its chamber judgment of 11 July 2006 (press release no. 419 of 2006), the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1, and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention.

The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.

Composition of the Court

The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:

Jean-Paul Costa (French), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greek),
Nicolas Bratza (British),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Nina Vajić (Croatian)
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),
Anatoli Kovler (Russian),
Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian),
Lech Garlicki (Polish),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani),
Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger),
Ineta Ziemele (Latvian),
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque),
Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian),
Giovanni Bonello (Maltese),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), substitute judges,

and also Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar.

Representatives of the parties

Government: John Grainger, Agent,

David Pannick, Michael Fordham, Counsel,

Nichola Samuel, Simon Barrett, Advisers;

Applicant: Rick Scannell, Duran Seddon, Counsel,

Michael Hanley, Sonal Ghelani, Solicitors.

***

After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.¹

Press contacts

Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)

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.