G, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 546 (13 April 2005)

G, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 546 (13 April 2005)

The Secretary of State's certificate that G's human rights claim was clearly unfounded was lawful because any interference with her Article 8 rights from removal to Italy would be proportionate, justified, and in accordance with the law; Article 15 of the Dublin II Regulation does not confer an enforceable right on G to have her asylum claim processed in the UK.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 546
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Queen (on the application of G); Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (immigration/asylum) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum Procedure, Dublin Regulation, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Clearly Unfounded Certificate
Immigration Law Human Rights Law European Union Law Asylum Procedure Dublin Regulation Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Clearly Unfounded Certificate

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Queen (on the application of G)

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (immigration/asylum) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of G to Italy would breach Article 8 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's certificate under Section 93 of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 was lawful
  3. 3 Whether Article 15 of Council Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin II) confers individual rights enforceable by G

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's certificate that G's human rights claim was clearly unfounded was lawful because any interference with her Article 8 rights from removal to Italy would be proportionate, justified, and in accordance with the law; Article 15 of the Dublin II Regulation does not confer an enforceable right on G to have her asylum claim processed in the UK.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed