In The Press

James Packer, Public Law Director at Duncan Lewis, writes for Free Movement about Daniel Negassi v the United Kingdom (application no. 64337/14) which concerns an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding a breach to the applicant’s right to a private life under Article 8 of ECHR. James explains that the applicant, Daniel Negassi, based his appeal on the grounds that preventing him from working - pending a decision on his asylum claim - was in direct breach of Article 8. The court dismissed his complaint based on the fact that he did not suffer “significant disadvantage” since the consequences following the decision to prevent him from working were not seriously adverse. James comments on the case by expressing his disappointment that the complaint was dismissed, “…by the time Mr Negassi commenced his judicial review, and before he received his offer of employment, the Court of Appeal had already ruled (in R (ZO) and MM) that people in his position ought to be allowed to work in accordance with the earlier version of paragraph 360 of the Immigration Rules. There was no stay on the effect of that decision, and the restriction to “shortage occupations” was only brought in several months later after the concurring judgment of the Supreme Court…”