Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65

June 2004

F. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 17341/03

Decision 22.6.2004 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Expulsion to Iran, where applicant’s right to physical and moral integrity would allegedly be breached given the ban against homosexuality: inadmissible

Article 3

Expulsion

Expulsion to Iran, where applicant would allegedly face risk of de ath or ill-treatment as a homosexual: inadmissible

The applicant, a citizen of Iran, requested asylum in the United Kingdom, claiming fear of persecution in his country for being homosexual. He claims that the Iranian security forces visited the house wher e he was living with his partner and arrested him and held him in custody for more than three months. He alleges that if returned to Iran, he would run the risk of extra-judicial execution and ill-treatment as punishment for his homosexual behaviour. The a sylum application was first examined by the Secretary of State, who found it lacking in credibility and rejected it on the ground that he was not satisfied that the applicant was in fact Iranian. On appeal, the Adjudicator also rejected the claim after hav ing evaluated the risk for homosexuals in Iran. Despite harsh legislation against homosexual acts, the burden of proof was high and convictions hard to achieve. As the applicant had not expressed any prospect of continuing a relationship with his partner, no issue arose under Article 8. Leave to appeal against the Adjudicator’s decision was rejected. Directions for the applicants expulsion have not been issued yet.

Inadmissible under Articles 2 and 3: Whilst the general situation in Iran did not foster the protection of human rights and homosexuals could be vulnerable to abuse, the applicant had not established in his case that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would face treatment contrary to these Articles: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 8: Whilst expelling persons who are at risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 can engage the responsibility of Contracting States given the fundamental importance of these provisions, such compelling considerations do not automatically apply under the other provisions of the Convention. On a purely pragmatic basis, it could not be required that an expelling Contracting State only return an alien to a country which was in full and effective enforcement of all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention:manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Inf ormation Notes