It will only be in exceptional circumstances that an applicant’s private or family life in a contracting state will outweigh the legitimate aim pursued by his or her extradition. Recalling that there is no right in the Convention not to be extradited and that, by implication, there is no right to be prosecuted in a particular jurisdiction, the Court said that it was not its task to adjudicate on the natural forum for prosecution. Its only task was to determine whether that extradition would be compatible with the applicant’s Convention rights.
Judges:
Lech Garlicki, P
Citations:
(2010) 51 EHRR SE6, 24027/07, [2010] ECHR 1067
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2007
(Statement of Facts) The applicants resisted extradition from the respondent country to the USA to face allegations of terrorist related crime. . .
See Also – Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-2007
(Statement of Facts) To resist an extradition application to America to stand trial on various federal charges, the appellants claimed that if they were extradited there was a real prospect that they would be made subject to a determination by the . .
Cited by:
See Also – Babar Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Apr-2012
The applicants said that if extradited to the USA to face charges related to terrorism, they would risk facing either imprisonment by Presidential decree, or full life terms.
Held: Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Extradition
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463497
