Khaled Boudjlida
at [43]: “… it is… in accordance with the Court’s settled case law that … fundamental rights, such as respect for the rights of the defence, do not constitute unfettered prerogatives and may be restricted, provided that the restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the measure in question and that they do not involve, with regard to the objectives pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes upon the very substance of the rights guaranteed (the judgments in Alassini and Others, C-317/08 to C-320/08,
- 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