262:
security from a terrorist threat. The Court stated that the derogating circumstances under
Article 15 are judged based on the exigencies of the situation. Much like the House of Lords, the Court considered these measures were disproportionate and discriminatory to non-nationals, as the Act only applied to non-British nationals and in principle the terrorist threat is posed equally by nationals and non-nationals. The Court, therefore, found a violation for nine of the applicants.
280:
This case has been argued as being "pivotal and an important statement on how far we can treat suspected foreign terrorists differently from criminal suspects." It also highlighted the importance of the judiciary assessing the legality of the government decisions. Lord Hope stated that the judiciary
261:
The Court unanimously ruled that the applicant's detention did not fall within the exception to the right of liberty set out in
Article 5 (1)(f) as it was not possible to deport them. The Government argued that Article 5 allows a balance between the right to liberty and the protection of national
265:
The Court also found a violation of
Article 5(4) in regarding four of the applicants, since due process was not satisfied during the proceedings. Some of the evidence used against the applicants was not disclosed to them and the advocates of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission could not
234:. They were alleged to be involved in extreme Islamic terrorist groups and were suspected of financially supporting them. Given that deporting them would give rise to ill-treatment, they were detained without trial. Eight of the applicants remained in Belmarsh until the Act was
488:
254:, the applicants were still kept in detention and therefore applied to the European Court on Human Rights. Scholars have argued that the House of Lords judgment prepared the ground for the judgment of the
503:
159:
293:
129:
211:
Costa, Rozakis, Bratza, Tulkens, Casadevall, Bonello, Barreto, Steiner, Garlicki, Hajiyev, Mijović, Myjer, Björgvinsson, Nicolaou, Bianku, Tsotsoria, Poalelungi
272:
As the applicants had domestic remedies to complain about their detention conditions, but did not make use of them, the Court found no violation of
Article 3.
149:
27:
251:
285:
231:
23:
269:
The Court also found a violation of
Article 5(5), in providing compensation for unlawful detention, for all the applicants, except two.
57:
472:
289:
239:
255:
19:
77:
The majority found a violation of
Article 5 (1), (4) and (5) regarding some of the applicants of the case.
508:
223:
281:
holding the government to account is "a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state."
114:
8:
227:
468:
134:
179:
124:
119:
104:
164:
144:
91:
174:
109:
465:
Reputation and
Judicial Tactics: A Theory of National and International Courts
497:
139:
420:
154:
460:
169:
18:
A. and Others v United
Kingdom is a human rights case decided by the
22:. It unanimously held that holding prisoners indefinitely under the
504:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United
Kingdom
235:
198:
Part 4 of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and
Security Act
294:
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011
305:
495:
445:A v Secretary of State for the Home Department
286:Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
232:Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
24:Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
245:
292:, which was then later repealed by the
496:
459:
311:
36:A. and Others v. the United Kingdom
13:
58:ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0219JUD000345505
14:
520:
482:
290:Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
266:communicate with their clients.
438:
413:
275:
467:. Cambridge University Press.
408:A. and Others v United Kingdom
401:
396:A. and Others v United Kingdom
389:
384:A. and Others v United Kingdom
377:
372:A. and Others v United Kingdom
365:
360:A. and Others v United Kingdom
353:
348:A. and Others v United Kingdom
341:
336:A. and Others v United Kingdom
329:
324:A. and Others v United Kingdom
317:
256:European Court of Human Rights
252:decision in the House of Lords
226:, eleven men were detained in
20:European Court of Human Rights
1:
299:
217:
7:
10:
525:
207:
202:
197:
192:
188:
97:
86:
81:
76:
71:
63:
53:
45:
40:
35:
453:
222:In the aftermath of the
41:Decided 19 February 2009
160:Davíd Thór Björgvinsson
246:Judgment and Reasoning
26:was incompatible with
193:Legislation affecting
130:Ireneu Cabral Barreto
410:ECHR 301 at para 136
398:ECHR 301 at para 229
386:ECHR 301 at para 224
374:ECHR 301 at para 190
362:ECHR 301 at para 186
350:ECHR 301 at para 182
338:ECHR 301 at para 171
326:ECHR 301 at para 170
288:was replaced by the
224:September 11 attacks
447:UKHL 56 at para 99
82:Court composition
474:978-1-107-03113-5
215:
214:
135:Elisabeth Steiner
115:Françoise Tulkens
516:
509:2009 in case law
478:
448:
442:
436:
435:
433:
431:
417:
411:
405:
399:
393:
387:
381:
375:
369:
363:
357:
351:
345:
339:
333:
327:
321:
315:
309:
180:Mihai Poalelungi
150:Ljiljana Mijović
125:Giovanni Bonello
120:Josep Casadevall
105:Christos Rozakis
33:
32:
524:
523:
519:
518:
517:
515:
514:
513:
494:
493:
489:ECtHR judgement
485:
475:
456:
451:
443:
439:
429:
427:
419:
418:
414:
406:
402:
394:
390:
382:
378:
370:
366:
358:
354:
346:
342:
334:
330:
322:
318:
310:
306:
302:
278:
248:
220:
184:
165:George Nicolaou
145:Khanlar Hajiyev
92:Jean-Paul Costa
90:
12:
11:
5:
522:
512:
511:
506:
492:
491:
484:
483:External links
481:
480:
479:
473:
455:
452:
450:
449:
437:
412:
400:
388:
376:
364:
352:
340:
328:
316:
314:, p. 111.
303:
301:
298:
277:
274:
250:Following the
247:
244:
219:
216:
213:
212:
209:
205:
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
190:
189:
186:
185:
183:
182:
177:
175:Nona Tsotsoria
172:
167:
162:
157:
152:
147:
142:
137:
132:
127:
122:
117:
112:
110:Nicolas Bratza
107:
101:
95:
94:
84:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
55:
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
38:
37:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
521:
510:
507:
505:
502:
501:
499:
490:
487:
486:
476:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
446:
441:
426:
422:
416:
409:
404:
397:
392:
385:
380:
373:
368:
361:
356:
349:
344:
337:
332:
325:
320:
313:
308:
304:
297:
295:
291:
287:
282:
273:
270:
267:
263:
259:
257:
253:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
210:
206:
203:Case opinions
201:
196:
191:
187:
181:
178:
176:
173:
171:
168:
166:
163:
161:
158:
156:
153:
151:
148:
146:
143:
141:
140:Lech Garlicki
138:
136:
133:
131:
128:
126:
123:
121:
118:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
103:
102:
100:
96:
93:
89:
85:
80:
75:
70:
67:Grand Chamber
66:
62:
59:
56:
52:
48:
44:
39:
34:
31:
29:
25:
21:
16:
464:
461:Dothan, Shai
444:
440:
428:. Retrieved
424:
415:
407:
403:
395:
391:
383:
379:
371:
367:
359:
355:
347:
343:
335:
331:
323:
319:
307:
283:
279:
276:Significance
271:
268:
264:
260:
249:
228:HMP Belmarsh
221:
155:Egbert Myjer
98:
87:
17:
15:
312:Dothan 2014
170:Ledi Bianku
498:Categories
300:References
240:Parliament
230:under the
218:Background
425:EachOther
421:"Freedom"
242:in 2005.
88:President
28:Article 5
463:(2014).
430:12 April
236:repealed
208:Majority
64:Chamber
49:3455/05
471:
99:Judges
72:Ruling
454:Books
469:ISBN
432:2022
284:The
54:ECLI
46:Case
258:.
238:by
500::
423:.
296:.
30:.
477:.
434:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.