CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 février 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 3 February 1999 J.E.D. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 42225/98 Decision 2.2.1999 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Fairness of expulsion proceedings: inadmissible   Article 3 Expulsion Expulsion to the Ivory Coast: inadmissible   The applicant, an Ivorian national, arrived in London in September 1994 and applied for political asylum, claiming his life was in danger in his home country because of his involvement in a student movement. He maintained that following a demonstration organised by this movement, he was taken to a police station where he was allegedly ill-treated and forced to resign from the movement. The police later sent him a summons and he fled the country. In February 1996, the Secretary of State rejected his asylum application on account of the lack of evidence corroborating his allegations. His appeal was dismissed, but he renewed his application in October 1997, submitting letters and statements of third parties to support his allegations on the existence of a risk of persecution. The Secretary of State did not treat it as a fresh application, since the government ban on the student movement had been lifted. No appeal lay against this decision. The High Court, following a hearing at which the applicant was represented by a lawyer, refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review. Inadmissible under Article 3: The authorities had due regard to the applicant’s arguments and to the past and present situation in the receiving country. Having regard to these elements, the Court after carrying out its own examination of the applicant’s arguments and materials considered that he had failed to show that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by Article   3: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 6: In the instant case, and without prejudice to the issue of whether Article   6 is applicable to asylum or deportation proceedings, the applicant was able to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision and the High Court proceedings did not indicate any elements of unfairness. He was legally represented and it is not for the Court to comment on the adequacy of his lawyer’s presentation of his case before the High Court: 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