Case summaries
The case concerns the unlawfulness of the detention pending expulsion for a total period of more than one year and eight months without effective judicial review of one of the applicants, Mr. Abas Amie (Articles 5 § 1, 5 § 4 of the ECHR); and an unlawful interference with the right to respect for family life, in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, with respect to the other applicants, his family members.
The legality of an applicant’s detention in a Centre for Identification and Expulsion (C.I.E.), even where this satisfies legal requirements, should be assessed in the light of the compatibility of the applicant’s state of health with the type of assistance and support that the centre is able to provide.
Failure to integrate into the country, which is typically the case, does not constitute grounds for protection. Behaviour a long time previously in relation to the entry is not significant when assessing security requirements. Aggressive behaviour in the Federal Support Centre does not alone represent a need for security which justifies detention (deportation detention). Despite removal from the Federal Support Centre owing to this behaviour, this must not lead to an asylum seeker losing his entitlement to basic services.
The holding of two Somali nationals in a Maltese detention centre is declared not to be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; the cumulative effect of the conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman treatment. The Court accepted that the detention, although lengthy, fell within Article 5 (1) (f). However, the Court declares a violation of Article 5 (4) as the applicants did not have access to judicial review of the decision to detain them, hence they could not challenge the lawfulness of detention.
The case examined the allegations of the applicants that their deportation to Moscow will entail a real risk of refoulement to Afghanistan where they fear treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Further, it examined the applicants’ complaints of a violation of their right to an effective remedy in conjunction with Article 3, invoking Article 13 of the Convention.
The Council of State found that a decision to extend the detention of a foreigner was a decision which adversely affected the individual. The principle enshrined in EU law of the rights of the defence applies to the preparation for this decision. Under this principle, according to the Council of State, the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the extension decision must be explained expressly and clearly to the foreigner, along with the legal consequences of the decision. Furthermore, a representative must be notified of the intention to issue a decision to extend detention of the foreigner, to enable the representative to support the foreigner in his response to the extension decision.
In a situation of unlawful detention – unlawful because it did not comply with national and European norms on the detention of illegally staying citizens – as well as inhuman and degrading conditions in the Identification and Expulsion Centre, the revolt by the four Defendants should be considered as proportionate and the alleged conduct should be treated as legitimate defence.
The case examined the allegations of five Afghan nationals that their detention conditions in Pagani detention centre were in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, that they did not have access to an effective remedy (Article 13) and that they were deprived of their liberty and security as well as of their right to have the lawfulness of their detention decided speedily by a Court (Article 5 para 4).
The case concerned complaints under Article 5 § 1 by asylum
seekers staying at the Debrecen Reception Centre for Refugees (Hungary) about the unlawfulness of their detention – without effective judicial review – pending the outcome of their asylum claims.
The case concerns an asylum seeker’s complaint under Article 5(1) about the unlawfulness of his detention without effective judicial review, pending the outcome of his asylum claim.