Ahmed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effec
t) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 436 (IAC) at [50]-[51] in commenting on Ms Smyth’s submission in that case (she having also been Counsel for the G.L.D on that occasion) that Article 47 was context-specific : “50. We agree with that last submission. As was noted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-249/13
- JUDGE STOREY
- Kiarie, R (On the Application Of) and Another v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Kiarie and Byndloss
- The 2004 Citizens Directive
- Article 27
- Article 28
- Article 31
- The 2006 EEA Regulations
- Home Office Guidance
- The application
- The statutory appeal
- The decision under challenge
- The grant of permission
- Department
- The grounds
- Macastena
- Kiarie & Byndloss
- ANALYSIS
- udicial redress
- Suspensive effect
- The regulation 24AA test
- ground
- Regulation 24AA as a discretionary power
- Regulation 24AA as a temporary measure tied to the appeals process
- in-time appeal:
- The proportionality issue
- Kiarie & Byndloss
- The right of “defence” in person and regulation 29AA
- Meaning of Exclusion
- Right to be heard
- Ahmed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effec
- Khaled Boudjlida
- EU:C2010:146
- EU:C:2013:588
- Pecastaing v Belgium
- case
- THE APPLICANT’S CASE
- Kiarie and Byndloss
- JR (in the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Ukus
- Annex A
- Note:
- Human rights considerations and interim orders to suspend removal
- here