Vreemdelingenrecht.com - het weblog

Zowel voor de Staatssecretaris als voor asieladvocaten interessant. In Engeland moet een rechter eerst kijken of er juridisch fouten zijn gemaakt zodat een zaak opnieuw moet. Dus daar gaat hoger beroep wat anders dan bij ons. Deze rechter kijkt of er aanknopingspunten zijn voor een hoger beroep: I have considered the Upper Tribunal's decision with some care. It seems to me that they did reflect the contents of the evidence that was placed before them, including the important CPT reports from the Council of Europe and made appropriate findings upon them. Mr Gilbert has pointed out to me that in one respect, in paragraph 40 of the decision, the Upper Tribunal seems to have suggested that the CPT made no specific recommendations in relation to the material conditions in the Mount Carmel Irregular Immigrants Ward. That appears at first sight to be correct, but there is no basis, as I see the matter, for suggesting that the Tribunal did not look ...

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 184 April 2015 Khan v. Germany - 38030/12 Judgment 23.4.2015 [Section V] See: Chamber Judgment [2015] ECHR 411 Article 8 Expulsion Proposed removal of a mentally ill person who had lived and worked in the host country for more than twenty years: expulsion would not constitute a violation Facts - The applicant moved from Pakistan to Germany in 1991 with her husband. Three years later her son was born. She and her husband divorced. The applicant worked as a cleaner in different companies and obtained a permanent residence permit in Germany in 2001. In 2005 she committed manslaughter in a state of acute psychosis. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia and confined to a psychiatric hospital. In 2009 her expulsion was ordered as she was found to pose a danger to public safety. Her mental health subsequently improved and she was granted days of leave and allowed to work full-time in the hospital laundry. The applicant lodged a...