Saeedi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns the return of an asylum seeker ("Plaintiff") to Greece under the Dublin Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003). The Plaintiff challenges the Secretary of State for the Home Department's ("Defendant") decision to return him to Greece, arguing that such return risks ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Union law.

The Plaintiff entered the United Kingdom illegally in January 2009 and claimed asylum, describing a journey through multiple countries including Iran, Turkey, and several European states before arriving in the UK. He later provided a witness statement describing detention and poor treatment in Greece and Turkey, including overcrowded detention conditions, lack of legal advice, inadequate facilities, and risks of violence and refoulement.

Procedurally, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff in April 2009 of the intention to return him to Greece under the Dublin Regulation, based on a Eurodac fingerprint match indicating prior presence in Greece. Greece was deemed responsible by default. The Defendant certified the Plaintiff's human rights claim as clearly unfounded, leading to judicial review proceedings which stayed removal directions.

The case was designated as a test case for Dublin returns to Greece after the withdrawal of another test case. The hearing was relatively short but accompanied by voluminous written submissions, focusing on Article 3 ECHR and European Union law issues concerning the Plaintiff’s risk of ill-treatment and the legality of return to Greece.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Secretary of State's certification that the Plaintiff's Article 3 claim is clearly unfounded was lawful and justified.
2. Whether the deeming provision in Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, which treats Greece as a safe country, is compatible with Article 3 ECHR.
3. Whether the Secretary of State should exercise discretion under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation (the sovereignty clause) to assume responsibility for the Plaintiff's asylum claim, given alleged deficiencies in Greece’s compliance with European Union asylum law.
4. The extent to which the Defendant must consider fundamental rights under European Union law when deciding on returns under the Dublin Regulation.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contends that return to Greece risks ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR due to detention conditions, inadequate asylum procedures, destitution, and risk of onward refoulement.
• The Defendant's certification of the human rights claim as clearly unfounded was unlawful because it failed to properly consider these risks.
• The deeming provision that treats Greece as a safe country is incompatible with Article 3 because it precludes consideration of onward refoulement risks.
• The Secretary of State should exercise discretion under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation to assume responsibility for the Plaintiff’s asylum claim due to Greece's failure to comply with EU asylum obligations.
• The Defendant improperly gives predominant weight to assurances from the Greek government over independent reports from UNHCR, Amnesty International, and other NGOs.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant certified the Plaintiff’s Article 3 claim as clearly unfounded based on the evidence and established legal principles.
• The deeming provision and certification process are consistent with Article 3 and have been upheld in authoritative case law.
• The Secretary of State exercises discretion under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation on a case-by-case basis and is not obliged to assume responsibility simply because Greece does not fully comply with all EU asylum law provisions.
• Assurances from Greece are given significant weight as a fellow Member State presumed to uphold its treaty obligations.
• The deficiencies in Greece’s asylum system are matters for the Greek authorities and European institutions, not for the UK to remedy through Dublin Regulation discretion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 1 AC 1	Upheld the compatibility of returns to Greece under the Dublin Regulation with Article 3 ECHR; confirmed the legality of the deeming provision; emphasized presumption that Greece complies with its obligations.	The court applied Nasseri as binding authority supporting the Secretary of State’s certification and refusal to exercise discretion under Article 3(2) to assume responsibility for the Plaintiff’s claim.
KRS v United Kingdom, Application No 32733/08 [2008] ECHR 1781	Confirmed that return under Dublin Regulation engages Article 3 obligations; presumption that Greece will observe its obligations; complaints about conditions should be pursued with Greek authorities and Strasbourg Court.	The court accepted the presumption that Greece complies with Article 3 and that risks of onward removal should be addressed by Greek authorities, reinforcing the Defendant’s position.
ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 WLR 348	Clarified the standard of review for certification of claims as clearly unfounded; the court reviews the Secretary of State’s decision with anxious scrutiny but does not substitute its own decision.	The court applied this standard to uphold the certification of the Plaintiff’s Article 3 claim as clearly unfounded.
Limbuela v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 AC 396	Established that deliberate state action causing destitution can engage Article 3; mere destitution without state responsibility does not.	The court distinguished the Plaintiff’s case, holding that destitution in Greece is not directly attributable to the UK’s decision to return under Dublin Regulation and thus does not engage Article 3.
Mirza v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Irish High Court, 21 October 2009	Held that Article 3(2) discretion under the Dublin Regulation is not mandatory except where there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3; no obligation to derogate merely because asylum system is deficient.	The court found this decision consistent with the present court’s approach regarding the exercise of discretion under Article 3(2).
Joined Cases C-175/08 to C-179/08 Abdulla v Bundesrepublik Deutschland	Interpreted the Qualification Directive in light of the Geneva Convention and Charter of Fundamental Rights; emphasized respect for fundamental rights in asylum assessments.	The court used Abdulla to confirm that the Dublin Regulation and its sovereignty clause must be interpreted in the context of fundamental rights but do not impose on the Secretary of State a duty to remedy deficiencies in another Member State’s asylum system.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court extensively reviewed the Plaintiff’s evidence and voluminous reports concerning conditions for asylum seekers in Greece, including detention, procedural safeguards, and risks of refoulement. It acknowledged that conditions and procedures in Greece are problematic and leave much to be desired but found no material difference from the situation considered in earlier authoritative cases (Nasseri and KRS).

Applying Article 3 ECHR jurisprudence, the court recognized the high threshold for ill-treatment and emphasized that destitution alone, absent direct state responsibility, does not engage Article 3. It found the risk of detention in conditions breaching Article 3 to be speculative and insufficient to establish a real risk.

Regarding the certification under the 2004 Act, the court held that the Secretary of State’s decision to certify the Plaintiff’s Article 3 claim as clearly unfounded was lawful, applying the judicial review standard of anxious scrutiny and concluding that the tribunal would uphold the certificate.

On the deeming provision treating Greece as a safe country, the court relied on Nasseri and KRS to conclude that it is not incompatible with Article 3 given the absence of evidence of forced removals from Greece to countries where the Plaintiff would face ill-treatment. The fact that some returns to Afghanistan have occurred voluntarily does not materially alter this position.

Concerning the sovereignty clause (Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation), the court analyzed whether the Secretary of State must exercise discretion to assume responsibility for the Plaintiff’s asylum claim due to alleged deficiencies in Greece’s compliance with EU law. The court found no obligation to do so unless there is a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. It rejected the notion that the Secretary of State must police compliance of other Member States with EU asylum law, as this would undermine the Dublin Regulation’s purpose of preventing secondary movements and causing delays.

The court noted the Secretary of State’s current case-by-case approach to discretion under Article 3(2) but criticized the absence of formal policy or explicit consideration of fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law. Nonetheless, it concluded that even if such rights were considered, the Plaintiff’s case would not benefit because he is not in a vulnerable category and the risks alleged are speculative or insufficiently substantiated.

The court also reviewed comparative jurisprudence from other Member States, including the Irish High Court and German Administrative Court, finding the former consistent with its approach and the latter fact-specific and not generally applicable.

In sum, the court upheld the Defendant’s decisions, finding no substantial grounds to believe the Plaintiff faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned to Greece under the Dublin Regulation.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

The court held that the Secretary of State lawfully certified the Plaintiff’s Article 3 claim as clearly unfounded and was entitled to return him to Greece under the Dublin Regulation. The deeming provision treating Greece as a safe country is compatible with Article 3, and there is no obligation to exercise discretion under Article 3(2) to assume responsibility for the Plaintiff’s asylum claim absent a real risk of ill-treatment. The court reaffirmed the presumption that Greece will comply with its obligations under EU and human rights law.

The decision directly affects the parties by permitting the Defendant to proceed with the Plaintiff’s return to Greece. No new precedent was established beyond the application and reaffirmation of existing authority, particularly the House of Lords decision in Nasseri and the Strasbourg Court’s approach in KRS.