UK ‘legally obliged’ to comply with European court on Rwanda policy

There is a clear legal obligation under the convention for states to comply with rule 39 measures in relation to the UK I should state that it has always complied with rule 39 measures going all the way back to the old Commission in the 1950s the UK has also publicly declared the

Need for other states to comply with rule 39 indications the most recent example of this was in 2021 when the UK urged the Russian Federation to comply with the Court’s uh rule 39 measure adopted in relation to the release of Alexi Naval

The European Court of Human Rights has emphasised that states must obey emergency decisions (known as Rule 39) issued by the court. The statement comes after the British government threatened to ignore the court if it tries to block sending migrants to Rwanda.

(Subscribe: https://bit.ly/C4_News_Subscribe)

——-

Watch more of our explainer series here – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXjqQf1xYLQ6bu-iixvoFTVsiXQVlVniX
Get more news at our site – https://www.channel4.com/news/

Follow us:
Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/
Twitter – https://twitter.com/Channel4News
TikTok – https://www.tiktok.com/@c4news
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/channel4news/

10 comments

  7. It is disingenuous of Síofra O’Leary to bring up Navalny in comparison to Rwanda. O'Leary is generally respectable so it is surprising to hear this come from her.

    Navalny already had been granted refugee status in the EU and been granted diplomatic protections by the EU when his plane was grounded by Russia, he was forcibly removed, arrested and imprisoned on political charges, then subjected to inhumane treatment. Russia was given right of reply and the whole case took a couple of weeks to reach interim orders. The rights of all parties were respected as they should.

    That is apples and oranges to how Strasbourg has acted on Rwanda deportations. The interim order from Strasbourg that prevented Rwanda deportations was handed down by a judge without even reviewing the case, let alone giving the UK a right of reply. As in the order was made minutes after the motion hit his desk. Here we're talking about persons with no legal standing to be in country, whose right to asylum processing is continuing post deportation, whom are granted full access to the UK legal system for any further motions they wish to file, where a robust right of return protection is established should they be found to be legitimate or a UK court orders it, where they are being deported to a safe third country with facilities provided by the UK and where UK courts, including the supreme court agree with everything I have just said. Indeed the Strasbourg interim order previously mentioned was made to overturn an order by the UK supreme court that the deportations go ahead on the aforementioned grounds. Just extraordinary stuff.

    Rule 39 is being ignored in relation to Rwanda because Strasbourg has set a precedent that it is willing to use interim orders as a political weapon and fail to respect its legal obligations to all parties. It absolutely should be ignored in this instance. The new revisions to the bill are robust and meet all stipulations UK courts have set out whilst continuing to comply with all ECHR obligations. There are no legal grounds for Strasbourg to delay deportations any longer and any such orders would be an abuse of the courts powers.

  10. We're a founding member of the European Court of Human Rights. It was first developed by a British MP and Lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. Totally seperate entity than the EU. For all the idiots moaning about the EU. You can't get everyone else to sign something then pullout of it yourself 😂

Leave a Reply