ECtHR – Nassr Allah v. Latvia, Application No. 66166/13, 21 July 2015

Facts:

The applicant’s detention

On 29 December 2012, the applicant fled Syria and entered Russia to apply for asylum.  However, the applicant crossed the border into Latvia before Russia examined his asylum application.  In Latvia, the applicant filed a second asylum application.

On 7 May 2013, the applicant was detained after the applicant failed to provide Latvian officials with an ID or travel document.  After finding a document showing that the applicant had applied for asylum in Russia under a different name, Latvian officials detained the applicant and alleged that his identity could not be determined and that he was misusing the asylum procedure.

On 10 May 2013, the Daugavpils City Court (City Court) agreed with Latvian officials and held that the applicant had misused the asylum procedure on grounds  that the applicant had not arrived directly from Syria and had applied for asylum in Russia.  Concluding, the City Court confirmed the applicant’s detention finding that evidence suggested that the applicant would flee Latvia and obstruct the asylum procedure in another country.

On 6 July 2013, the Latgale Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of his detention under the same factual and legal grounds as the City Court.

On 8 July 2013, the City Court extended the applicant’s detention and denied a request by the applicant to be placed in an accommodation centre. The Latgale Regional Court once again dismissed the applicant’s appeal under the same grounds.

On 7 October 2013, the applicant was released after finding that his detention ceased to exist due to the fact that applicant had been granted subsidiary protection status by the Asylum Affairs Division and a temporary residence permit.

The applicant’s asylum application

On 3 October 2013, Latvia denied the applicant’s asylum application, but the applicant was granted subsidiary protection status.  Believing that the subsidiary protection was insufficient, the applicant appealed the asylum decision. However, on 26 February 2014, the Administrative District Court dismissed the appeal without examination on grounds that the applicant continuously failed to appear without good reason.

Decision & reasoning:

Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

The applicant alleged that his detention, pending his asylum application, was not necessary because his identity had been confirmed and there was no evidence that he would flee or obstruct the asylum proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), however, found that the applicant’s detention was not arbitrary and was carried out in good faith.  Specifically, the ECtHR found that the applicant’s detention was not in breach of Latvian law because the applicant’s detention was based on evidence suggesting that: 1) the applicant’s identity had not been established and 2) the applicant might leave the country and misuse the asylum procedure.  The ECtHR distinguished Longa Yonkeu v. Latvia (no. 57229/09, §§ 82 and 128, 15 November 2011) in that unlike the detainee in Longa Yonkeu, the applicant in the present case was not detained beyond the date of a final decision of his asylum application.  Lastly, the ECtHR relied on a previous report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (“CPT”) and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT/Inf (2013) to conclude that the material conditions in Latvian’s detention centre were in compliance with the Convention.

Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention

1. Speediness of Review

The applicant alleged that the appeal procedure was unlawful in that the appellate courts did not provide him with a speedy decision.  The ECtHR started by reiterating that whether a decision is provided within a reasonable time is a matter that must be determined “in the light of the circumstances of each case, including the complexity of the proceedings, the conduct by the domestic authorities and by the applicant and what was at stake for the latter.” The ECtHR then went on to state that although States are not obliged to create courts of appeal to review the lawfulness of a person’s detention, once States choose to create appellate options, these procedures must comply with the requirements of “speediness.” In the case at hand, the ECtHR found that though the number of days taken to conduct the proceedings is an important factor, it is not a conclusive one; rather “speediness” must be assessed in the light of the overall circumstances.  Although the applicant’s detention was reviewed every two months, the ECtHR found that the days were excessive in relation to the complexity of the matters being reviewed.  In other words, the ECtHR believed that there was no evidence that the case was particularly complex or required ongoing investigation, that the Government needed additional time to collect observations or documents, or that the applicant himself contributed to the delay.

2. Alleged inability to obtain an effective review of detention

The applicant alleged that he had not fully benefited from adversarial proceedings or enjoyed all the necessary procedural guarantees because the appellate proceedings had been conducted in writing and in a language that he did not understand.  The ECtHR observed that the applicant was duly notified of the appellate procedures, the procedures were explained to him, and the he certified the notification with his signature.  Moreover, the applicant was represented by a lawyer, afforded the possibility of lodging further observations with the appellate court, and the court’s decisions was also explained to him.  As for the assertion that the procedure was in writing, the ECtHR noted that the applicant did not request an oral hearing.  In conclusion, the ECtHR found that the applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

Outcome:

The ECtHR held that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention as regards to the speediness of review.

Observations/comments:

This case summary was written by Krsna Avila, J.D. Cornell Law School.

Other sources:

Rule 54(3) of the Rules of Court

Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (“CPT”) and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT/Inf (2013) 20)