Communicated on 16 April 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 46783/14 M.K. against Hungary lodged on 20 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr M.K., is a Pakistani national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Budapest. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Fazekas , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was stopped by police officers of the Csongrád County Police Department on 4 July 2013 for identity check. During his questioning he admitted to having crossed the Hungarian border illegally. On 5 July 2013 he lodged an asylum application with the Office of Immigration and Nationality. He was ordered to be detained ( menekültügyi őrizet ) on the basis of section 31/A (1) a) and c) of Act no. LXXX of 2007 on Asylum (Asylum Act) for the clarification of his identity and nationality.

On 8 July 2013 the Békéscsaba District Court extended the asylum detention by a maximum of sixty days. It noted that the applicant ’ s identity was unclear and that he had arrived in Hungary unlawfully. The court held that less stringent measures were not suitable in the case to secure the applicant ’ s availability to the authorities.

The court appointed a legal representative for the applicant, who, according to the applicant, remained passive throughout the procedure.

On 27 August and 25 October 2013 the asylum authority successfully applied to the District Court for further extensions of the applicant ’ s asylum detention.

On 1 August 2013 the asylum authority stated that the applicant ’ s asylum request was neither inadmissible nor manifestly ill-founded and thus it ordered the examination of the case on the merits.

The applicant was granted subsidiary protection pursuant to section 12 § 1 of the Asylum Act. He was released from asylum detention by the decision of the asylum authority on 21 December 2013.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his asylum detention was not lawful or justified since it was not supported by any of the reasons mentioned in the exhaustive list of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. He submits in particular that his asylum detention was arbitrary, because the court ordered it without properly analysing the legal grounds, his personal circumstances or the applicability of less stringent measures, considerations prescribed both by the national law and the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?