OTHMAN (ABU QATADA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
1
In the case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 8139/09) against the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the
Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Jordanian
national, Mr Omar Othman (“the applicant”), on 11 February 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms G. Peirce a lawyer practising in
London with Birnberg Peirce & Partners. She was assisted by
Mr E. Fitzgerald QC, Mr R. Husain QC and Mr D. Friedman, counsel. The
United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Ms L. Dauban, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he would be at real risk of
ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and a flagrant denial of
justice, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention, if he were deported to
Jordan.
4. On 19 February 2009 the President of the Chamber to which the
application had been allocated decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, indicating to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of
the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to remove the
applicant to Jordan pending the Court’s decision.
On 19 May 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of
the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
5. The applicants and the Government each filed written observations
(Rule 59 § 1 of the Rules of Court). In addition, third-party comments were
received from the non-governmental organisations Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch and JUSTICE, which had been given leave by the