Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

IMMIGRATION/HUMAN RIGHTS: Gulijev v Lithuania (Case No 10425/03)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Slug : gulijev-v-lithuania-case-no-10425-03
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 23, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87461

(European Court of Human Rights; 16 December 2008)

After being granted a number of temporary residence permits, the Azerbaijani father was expelled from Lithuania on the basis that he posed a threat to national security and public order. During the deportation proceedings the court relied on a classified report, not disclosed to the father. The father's wife and children were Lithuanian citizens. The father complained that this decision had breached his right to respect for family life under Art 8.

The issue was whether there was a genuine threat justifying the interference with the family's Art 8 rights. There was no evidence that the father's stay in Lithuania had posed a threat beforehand. No objective material had been presented to the court to demonstrate that any good reasons for the decision existed, leading the court to find that there were no documents that would allow the court to conclude that the father posed such a threat. There had been a violation of Art 8.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from