European Court of Human Rights

Published April 23, 2008

Nnyanzi v United Kingdom (Application No 21878/06)

Before L. Garlicki, President and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, S. Pavlovschi, L. Mijovic, D. Thór Björgvinsson, J. Šikuta and P. Hirvelä Section Registrar L.

Early Judgment April 8, 2008

There was no reason to belive that an applicant who unsuccessfully sought asylum, on the basis of her father’s political activities in Uganda, would be ill treated on her expulsion to that state.

The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that the rejection of the applicant’s asylum application and the ensuing decision to remove her to Uganda would not give rise to a violation of article 3, prohibiting inhuman or degrading treatment, article 5, protecting the right to liberty, or article 8, guaranteeing the right to private and family life, of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant, Evarista Evelyn Nnyanzi, a Ugandan national, was born in 1965 and lived in London. She was the daughter of Evaristo Nnyanzi, a former Ugandan government minister from 1985-1986 and Treasurer-General of the Democratic Party. He was charged with treason in 1998. Her mother and younger siblings lived in Kenya.

In its judgment, the Court held:

I Alleged violation of article 3

The Court noted that the most severe form of persecution that the applicant experienced in Uganda before coming to the United Kingdom in 1998 was an arrest and one-day detention and questioning in 1987.

After examining the individual circumstances of the applicant in the light of the current general situation in Uganda, the Court found, unanimously, that no substantial grounds had been established for believing that she would be exposed to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 3 if expelled.

Accordingly, her expulsion to Uganda would not be in violation of article 3.

II Alleged violation of article 5

In the light of its conclusions on the applicant’s article 3 complaint, the Court held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under article 5.

III Alleged violation of article 8

Her proposed removal to Uganda was in accordance with the law and motivated by a legitimate aim, namely the maintenance and enforcement of immigration control.

As to the necessity of the interference, the Court found that any private life that the applicant had established during her stay in the United Kingdom when balanced against the legitimate public interest in effective immigration control would not render her removal a disproportionate interference.

Accordingly, the Court was of the unanimous view that the applicant’s removal to Uganda would not give rise to a violation of article 8.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones