Askar v United Kingdom: ECHR 1995

The Commission held inadmissible a complaint of substantial delay in granting permission for the family of a refugee to join him in this country, observing: ‘The Commission recalls that delay in proceedings concerning matters of ‘family life’ may raise issues under Article 8 of the Convention. In the case of H. v. the United Kingdom, the Court found a violation of Article 8 in respect of proceedings concerning the mother’s access to her child which lasted two years and seven months. However, the Court had regard in reaching that conclusion that the proceedings concerned a fundamental element of family life (whether a mother would be able to see her child again) and that they had a quality of irreversibility, lying within an area in which delay might lead to a de facto determination of the matter, whereas an effective respect for the mother’s family life required that the question be determined solely in the light of all relevant considerations and not by mere effluxion of time.’




European Convention on Human Rights 8


Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedAnufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.186969