[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Khan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 2293 (Admin) (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2293.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 2293 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		23rd September 2008

1. MR JUSTICE BLAKE: This is an application for permission for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State whereby he determined that the claimant's asylum claim should be considered by the Greek authorities pursuant to the arrangements made within the European Union and under the Dublin II Regulation.
2. The asylum application made in this country was made as long ago as May 2006 and, as long ago as June 2006, the Greek authorities, on notification by the Secretary of State, accepted responsibility for the consideration of the asylum application. In due course, the asylum application was refused and certified on safe third country grounds. The matter then was held up because there were challenges pending in this court and elsewhere as to, first, the nature of the legal regime that enabled the Secretary of State to certify certain countries as safe and apparently exclude consideration of their actual safety on human rights grounds; second, whether indeed there was a risk of violation of human rights by Greece if the claimant was returned to Greece.
3. Initially a decision of this court concluded that the regime was not compatible with human rights analysis and a declaration of incompatibility was made but recently, on 14th May 2008, the Court of Appeal, examining the regime, concluded that that was not the case and as long as the Secretary of State was prepared to monitor arrangements in Greece there was some way in which our obligations under the ECHR was compatible with the regime for certification on safe third country grounds and therefore set aside the declaration of compatibility. It seems that there is an application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords outstanding in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri [2008] EWCA Civ 464, which is the case just referred to. There have been further decisions of the Court of Appeal dealing with the problem of safety in Greece and there the Court of Appeal has indicated that the court should not, as it were, wait indefinitely for the fate of Nasseri to be determined and should decide the cases on the merits as to whether there was any legitimate basis for a stay.
4. It is far from clear what the eventual outcome will be about certain aspects of Greece's compliance with its obligation but that would be probably a matter now to be determined, if at all, in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, who would be seized of the matter and, indeed, in one case has issued a Rule 36 request that removal does not take effect. Much will be considered upon an up-to-date understanding of what is going on in Greece.
5. However, for present purposes this matter cannot remain in limbo. No-one appears for the claimant today to advance any submission as to why he would be at risk if the decision the Secretary of State was minded to make is implemented and his solicitors have applied to come off the record. I have considered the papers and conclude that there is nothing in these papers relating to this claimant to suggest that he has a particular vulnerability of risk of ill treatment in Greece and there is no particular case advanced on his behalf, very much a case of following the litigation in Nasseri as to whether the legal arrangements made are compatible with Convention obligations.
6. Since the Court of Appeal has concluded that they are, I therefore conclude that this is an application which should be dismissed rather than adjourned and if that prompts any further application elsewhere by the claimant it will no doubt be based upon a more individualised assessment of his situation, if not then the matter is disposed of and, as far as this court is concerned, there is no reason why he cannot be removed to Greece pursuant to the undertakings given as long ago as June 2006. For those reasons, this application is dismissed.