Refusal of Section 4 support under Regulation 3(2)(e). Held that the Principal Judge’s decisions in 26681 and 26857 for cases under Regulation 3(2)(e) where an application has been made to the ECTHR is correct namely the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and individuated and fully reasoned applications to the ECTHR and a basic merit test. Held the appellant’s application to the ECTHR was without arguable merit and therefore unlikely to succeed and the appeal was dismissed.
Read the full decision in
Published 8 February 2017