M.A. v. ESTONIA
Doc ref: 4327/18 • ECHR ID: 001-183490
Document date: May 9, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
Communicated on 9 May 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 4327/18 M.A . against Estonia lodged on 16 January 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The complaint under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention concerns the length of the applicant ’ s detention pending the outcome of his international protection proceedings in Estonia and the reasons adduced to justify the detention. The applicant, an Uzbekistan national, entered Estonia on 16 November 2016 and on the same day applied for international protection. On 18 November 2016 the Harju County Court authorised the applicant ’ s detention in Harku Detention Centre ( Harku kinnipidamiskeskus ) pending the outcome of the international protection proceedings and since then his detention has been repeatedly extended on grounds that the applicant might pose danger to national security and public order. The applicant remained detained at the time of lodging the application with the Court on 16 January 2018. It appears from the submitted documents that the applicant ’ s i nternational protection proceedings are ongoing .
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
Was the applicant deprived of h is liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,
(a) did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (f) of this provision?
(b) In so far as a period of that detention may have been effected for the purposes of the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f), i.e. “to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country”, was his detention lawful in terms of domestic law and free from arbitrariness in the context of the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f)? In that regard, has the applicant ’ s detention exceeded the time that can reasonably be required for the purpose of processing his international protection request? Have the domestic authorities displayed due diligence in processing the applicant ’ s international protection request? ( see , for example, Suso Musa v. Malta , no. 42337/12, §§ 90–93 and §§ 100–102, 23 July 2013)
The Government are invited to give detailed information about the processing of the applicant ’ s international protection request.
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
