CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 janvier 2001

.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. 27 February 2001 Al-Nashif and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 50963/99 Decision 25.1.2001 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-4 Review of lawfulness of detention Failure to exame appeal against detention pending deportation: admissible   Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Deportation from country where close family lives: admissible   Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Deportation for having taught Islam allegedly without due authorisation: admissible   In 1992, the first applicant, a stateless person of Palestinian origin, and Mrs S. arrived in Bulgaria. Their two children, the second and third applicant, were born in Sofia in 1993 and 1994 respectively. In 1995, the first applicant obtained a permanent residence permit. He married a Bulgarian national in a religious ceremony, but the marriage had no legal effect under Bulgarian law. He nonetheless asserted that he was living “on a permanent basis” with Mrs S. and their children. In 1997, he participated in an Islamic religious seminar. In 1999, a police inquiry took place on the suspicion that he was teaching religion, namely Islam, without due authorisation. Following a police report, the Passport Department of the Ministry of the Interior issued an order revoking the applicant’s permanent resident permit. The revocation was based on a provision of the Aliens Act according to which permanent residence permits may be revoked if the person “poses a threat to the security or the interests of the Bulgarian State;   however, no reasons were given for the decision. In April 1999, the order was transmitted to the police and served on the first applicant, who was supported by the official Muslim authorities. In June 1999, the National Police Directorate issued orders for the first applicant’s deportation, his detention pending deportation and his exclusion from the territory. He was arrested and transferred to a detention centre. He was detained for 26 days in complete isolation, no visits being allowed and, in July 1999, was deported to Syria. In May 1999, he had lodged appeals with the Ministry of the Interior and the Supreme Administrative Court against the order revoking his residence permit. The Ministry and the court rejected his appeals on the ground that, in accordance with the Aliens Act, orders concerning matters of national security were not subject to review. His other appeals, notably against his detention and the order for his detention and deportation, were not examined. Admissible under Articles 5 § 4, 8, 9 and 13.   © 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