London, UK (PRWEB UK) 3 January 2014
Moshen Tabrizagh vs SSHD-High Court ( Administrative Court)-CO/585/20135-December 2013
The case of Moshen Tabrizagh vs SSHD concerned an application for permission to judicially review the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to certify Moshin Tabrizagh’s asylum application on Dublin II Regulation (Third Country Grounds) and to remove him to Italy where, according to case documents he previously approached the Italian authorities as an asylum seeker.
According to court documents, Tabrizagh’s previous attempts to approach the Italian authorities regarding his asylum application was met with refusal from the Italian government to assist him, “arguably falling short” of Italy’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The case of Tabrizagh vs SSHD represents one of a number of cases that immigration lawyers have described as “challenges” in the UK in relation to the certification of asylum claims and removals to Italy. Some of the most notable of these are EM( Eritrea) & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1336 and Hussein v Netherlands and Dartegova v Austria ( App. No 6198/12).
In these cases the courts took immigration solicitors describe as a very “prescriptive” approach to the evidence required to rebut the presumption that Italy will comply with her international obligations and that individual experience are “not enough to rebut the presumption”.
Furthermore, developments in the light of the decisions made of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 28th September 2013 relinquishing its jurisdiction in Tarakhel v Switzerland ( Application No. 29217/12) in favour of the Grand Chamber consequent to Article 30 of the Convention. In addition, the Administrative Court in Giessen, German held in Ref: 1 AZ L 1550/13 GI.A on 28 August 2013:
“There are serious doubts whether the EU refugee law relevant to the core requirements of processing asylum applications is ensured in Italy. “
“The reception conditions for asylum seekers in Italy have systemic deficiencies that could cause serious risk that the applicant would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right in the event of his return to Italy.”
While UK courts are not bound by the decisions of the ECHR nor of the German Administrative Court, however the High Court was persuaded by Counsel in the case of Tarakhel v Switzerland ( Application No. 29217/12).
In the case of Moshen Tabrizagh vs SSHD, it is stated in court documentation that the Honorable Mr Justice King granted the application to judicially review the decision of the SSHD to certify and remove Tabrizagh to Italy on the ground that it is arguable that the material relied upon now advances the position from that considered by the Court of Appeal in the past case of EM( Eritrea) and of the decisions of the ECHR in the case of Tarakhel v Switzerland.
Mr Justice King held that it is arguable that the Claimant can now establish that there is a breach of Article 3 if removed to Italy.
Duncan Lewis immigration solicitor Ahmed Sesay acted for the claimant. He added;
“In my view, the granting of permission is a distinctive and exemplary characteristic of the judicial system in the United Kingdom which is always the epi-centre of the Rule of Law and custody of fundamental human rights.
The decision also cements the astuteness of the English Legal System to safeguarding the rights and liberties of the most vulnerable in our society.”
About Duncan Lewis
Duncan Lewis, established in 1998, is the largest civil legal aid practice in the UK and one of the country's fastest growing firms of solicitors, serving both corporate entities and private individuals from offices across London and throughout the UK. A recommended leading law firm by Law Society Lexcel, Legal 500; Duncan Lewis employs over 500 members of staff and was the first law firm to achieve the Investors in People Gold Quality Standard Mark in 2009. Representing over 25,000 clients per year, the company has an excellent reputation in the Administrative Court, High Court and Court of Appeal in the Immigration, Public law and Family/Child Care jurisdictions.
Established areas of law are: business immigration, child care, civil liberties, clinical negligence, community care, crime and fraud, dispute resolution, debt and insolvency, employment, family and divorce, housing, asylum and immigration, litigation, mental health, personal injury, prison law, professional negligence, public law and administrative law, regulatory matters and welfare benefits.