ECtHR, XX v. the United Kingdom, No. 42387/13, 2017
- 2017
- United Kingdom
Topics
Membership in a terrorist organisationLegal bases
European Convention on Human RightsCourts
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)Laws
Right to respect for private and family lifeFacts
The applicant was suspected of taking part in terrorism-related activities in Somalia. In 2010, the Secretary of State for the Home Office deprived him of his UK citizenship and barred him from re-entering the country. The applicant claimed that these decisions had violated his right to respect for private and family life and had been discriminatory. He also argued that he could not properly make his case from abroad, because of fears that his communications could be intercepted by Sudanese counter-terrorism authorities that would then harm him.
Legal grounds
Article 8 of the ECHR
Findings
The application was found inadmissible and manifestly ill-founded. Although an arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship might in some circumstances raise an issue under Article 8, because of its impact on the private life of an individual, the Court found that no such issue arose in the present case. The Home Secretary at the time had acted swiftly and diligently, and in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the applicant had had a statutory right to appeal and access to judicial review but the UK court had rejected his claims after giving them a comprehensive and thorough examination. Lastly, though the application had not been given access to some information of the case for security reasons, his special advocate had had access to this information, and the nature of the case was broadly known to the applicant. On the second point, the Court held that Article 8 could not be interpreted so as to impose an obligation on States to facilitate the return of every person deprived of citizenship in order for them to pursue an appeal against that decision. The UK court had rejected the applicant’s claims about not being able to argue his case from abroad, and the Court did not consider itself in a position to call into question that finding. Furthermore, the UK court had adopted a cautious approach to the case given the absence of instructions from the applicant, but still found conclusive evidence that he had been engaged in terrorism-related activities. In any case, it was the applicant who had originally chosen to leave the country. Finally, the Court noted that the applicant would not be left stateless by the loss of UK citizenship, and the interference to his private and family life caused by the deprivation of citizenship had been lawful under Article 8.