Maaouia v France: ECHR 5 Oct 2000

A deportation order, made against a Tunisian, was eventually quashed by the French Administrative Court and the Article 6 complaints related to the length of time taken in the proceedings. The Court’s reasoning why Article 6 does not apply to procedures for the expulsion of aliens was: ‘the decision whether or not to authorise an alien to stay in a country of which he is not a national does not entail any determination of his civil rights or obligations or of any criminal charge against him within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention.’
The fact that an expulsion order may have major repercussions on an individual’s private and family life is incidental to the exercise of state powers to take administrative measures for the purpose of immigration control. Those incidental effects do not bring expulsion proceedings within the scope of article 6.


39652/98, (2001) 33 EHRR 1037, [2000] ECHR 455, (2000) 33 EHRR 42


Worldlii, Bailii


European Convention on Human Rights 6


Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
CitedMurungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
CitedBB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another CA 19-Nov-2012
The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. . .
CitedReprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
CitedQX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.165944