Applicant argued that the decision to deport her husband was invalid. She asked for a cancellation of that decision, as well as for the release of her husband and for a permission for her husband to resume his asylum in Egypt.
The court in the first place indicated that in principle under Egyptian law no one can be arrested or detained without an order from a competent judge or the public prosecution. Defendants (the Egyptian President, the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Foreign Affairs) alleged that applicant’s husband had used his asylum in Egypt to infiltrate the border to Israel. The court however found that those allegations were not proven, and that there was nothing to assume that that applicant’s husband had been a threat to Egypt’s security or that he would have committed a crime. As such, the decision to deport applicant’s husband lacked an appropriate rationale. The court moreover indicated that a deportation could be harmful to applicant’s husband’s liberty and life, and could disrupt the unity of his family. As such, there was an element of urgency in the case that justifies halting the deportation decision’s execution.
Arrest and detention; deportation; no justifications
Applicant and her husband were Sudanese refugees who stayed in Egypt with a refugee residence permit. Applicant’s husband was arrested and detained in prison. Subsequently, applicant’s husband was moved to deportation prisons to prepare his deportation to Sudan.
The application was upheld, the deportation decision was halted; the release of applicant’s husband was ordered for his asylum to resume.
The court relied on Egyptian national law, together with provisions of the United Nations Refugee Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protect refugees against deportation.