BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> K.A.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 38844/12 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 734 (04 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/734.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 734 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
June 2013
K.A.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 38844/12
Decision 4.6.2013 [Section IV]
Article 37
Article 37-1
Striking out applications
Careful examination of applicant’s case by domestic courts: struck out
Facts - The applicant, a mother of six children, and her former husband were under investigation by the United Kingdom and the United States authorities for the sale of chemicals used for the manufacture of illegal drugs. In 2006 an indictment was filed against them in the US, which requested their extradition. Having carefully examined the circumstances of the case and the best interests of the child, the UK courts concluded that the applicant’s extradition would not violate her rights under Article 8. The applicant then lodged an application with the European Court, which granted an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court preventing her extradition while the proceedings before the Court were pending. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she had reached a plea agreement with the US authorities and she wished to withdraw her application to the Court.
Law - Article 37 § 1: Before striking out a case, the Court had to consider whether there were any circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the continued examination of the case, including in cases where the applicant wished to withdraw his or her application. Such circumstances have been held to exist when the continued examination of an application contributed to elucidating, safeguarding and developing the standards of protection under the Convention or when there was a new issue of concern or paucity of case-law on a particular subject. However, the Court considered that it should be slow to find that such circumstances existed where a case had been the subject of careful and detailed examination by the domestic courts. The applicant’s case had been examined at three levels of jurisdiction, all of which had given careful consideration not just to her case, but to the general approach to be taken to Article 8 in extradition cases. Therefore, notwithstanding the general importance of the issue initially presented to it, the Court was satisfied that there were no circumstances which would justify its continued examination of the applicant’s case.
Conclusion: struck out of the list (majority).
