Suspension of extradition or removal through submission of a Rule 39 application under the ECtHR Rules of Court

Suspension of extradition or removal through submission of a Rule 39 application under the ECtHR Rules of Court

The service of submitting a Rule 39 application under the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights (Rule 39) is critically important for individuals facing imminent removal or extradition from the United Kingdom. This service is typically requested by persons subject to a decision on forced return to their country of origin, where there is a risk of torture, inhuman treatment, or political persecution. Applicants often include asylum seekers, individuals challenging national court decisions, or those who have already been denied protection in the UK.

Rule 39 is applied as an interim measure that allows the suspension of forced return to a country where the person’s rights may be seriously violated, pending the ECtHR’s consideration of the complaint.

Preparation of a Rule 39 application by a lawyer: purpose, importance, actions

The purpose of submitting the application is to immediately halt the enforcement of a removal or extradition decision until the ECtHR complaint is reviewed. This allows time for proper international legal protection.

Proper and legally substantiated drafting of a Rule 39 application requires swift, precise, and experienced legal work. In most cases, the applicant’s fate depends on the accuracy of these actions.

Lawyer’s actions:

1. providing a legal opinion on the grounds for Rule 39 in the client’s specific case;
2. urgent analysis of the case, documents, and national court decisions;
3. drafting a reasoned application to the ECtHR with references to specific Convention articles and risks to the applicant’s life, liberty, or dignity;
4. attaching medical reports, documents on political persecution, evidence of threats of torture, arrest, inhuman treatment, or military danger;
5. translating necessary materials into English or French;
6. sending the request to the ECtHR with urgency and communicating with the Court.

Result for the client: if the application is granted — temporary suspension of the extradition or removal process from the UK, official prohibition of deportation until the ECtHR’s final decision. This allows the client to remain in the country and access additional protection mechanisms.

Legal support during urgent communication with the ECtHR

In Rule 39 cases, it is essential to conduct communication with the ECtHR Registry promptly and with legal precision. The Court has limited time to make a decision, so clarity, completeness, and compliance of all materials are crucial.

Lawyer’s actions:

1. compiling a complete document package in accordance with ECtHR Rules;
2. electronic submission of the application in line with procedural requirements;
3. prompt response to Registry requests (within established deadlines);
4. tracking the status of the application and informing the client of case progress.

Result for the client: the application will be reviewed as quickly as possible; the client will receive legal support throughout the waiting period and the opportunity to prevent forced return to a dangerous country.

Legal substantiation of Convention violations and risk analysis

To have a Rule 39 application granted, the Court must be convinced of the reality and seriousness of human rights risks upon return. This requires thorough legal analysis and evidentiary support.

Lawyer’s actions:

1. detailed substantiation of violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
2. analysis of the political situation in the country of origin, submission of evidence of real threats to the applicant’s life or dignity;
3. involvement of experts, investigative journalism, and reports from international human rights organisations;
4. preparation of a legal opinion confirming the threats to the client in case of extradition.

Result for the client: increased chances of Rule 39 application being granted; formation of a strong legal position to be considered during ECtHR review; additional grounds for further protection in national jurisdictions.