Information Note on the Court’s case-law 205

March 2017

Z.A. and Others v. Russia - 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 et al.

Judgment 28.3.2017 [Section III]

Article 5

Article 5-1

Deprivation of liberty

Asylum-seekers held for lengthy periods in airport transit zone: Article 5 applicable; violation

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Conditions in which asylum-seekers were held in airport transit zone: vio lation

[This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 18 September 2017]

Facts – The four applicants, who were asylum-seekers, were held in the international transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport in Russia for periods ranging from five months to one year and ten months after being refused entry into Russia. They had to sleep on a mat tress on the floor in the boarding area of the airport, which was constantly lit, crowded and noisy, and were sustained on emergency rations provided by the Russian office of UNHCR. There were no showers. In the Convention proceedings, they complained that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty (Article 5 § 1 of the Convention) and of the conditions in which they were held.

Law – Article 5 § 1: Holding aliens in an international zone of an airport involves a restriction on liberty which is not i n every respect comparable to that which obtains in detention centres. However, such confinement is acceptable only if it is accompanied by safeguards for the persons concerned and is not prolonged excessively. Otherwise, a mere restriction on liberty is t urned into a deprivation of liberty. Account should be taken of the fact that the measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country. The mere fact that it was possible for the applicants to leave Russia voluntarily could not rule out an infringement of the right to liberty.

The Court rejected the Russian Government’s contention that the applicants were not within Russian “jurisdiction” as the internatio nal transit was not the territory of the Russian Federation. Even assuming the applicants were not within Russian territory, holding them in the international transit zone made them subject to Russian law.

On the facts, the applicants, who were asylum-seek ers, had remained in the transit zone for considerably lengthy periods (ranging from just over five months to one year and ten months), could not enter Russian territory and did not have the option of entering a State other than that which they had left. A ccordingly, they had not chosen to stay in the transit zone and could not be said to have validly consented to being deprived of their liberty. Their confinement in the transit zone thus amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty.

In the absence of any reference by the Government to any provision of Russian law capable of serving as grounds for justifying the applicants’ deprivation of liberty, the applicants’ lengthy confinement in the transit zone did not have any legal basis in the domestic law. Contr ary to the Government’s submission, Chapter 5 of Annex 9 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (“the Chicago Convention”), which concerned “Inadmissible Persons and Deportees”, could not serve as a legal basis for a person’s detention.

Conclusion : violation (six votes to one).

Article 3: A public space such as the transit zone of an airport, lacking such basic amenities as beds, showers, and areas designated for cooking, was by definition ill equipped to serve as a long-term residence. T he Court found it established that while detained in the transit zone the applicants did not have individual beds and did not enjoy access to shower and cooking facilities. In addition, the applicants in the present case endured poor conditions of detentio n not for days, but for many months in a row. The conditions the applicants were required to endure while being detained for extended periods of time had caused them considerable mental suffering, undermined their dignity, and made them feel humiliated and debased and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.

Conclusion : violation (six votes to one).

Article 41: sums ranging from EUR 15,000 to EUR 26,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(See also above Ilias and Ah med v. Hungary , 47287/15, 14 March 2017, Information Note 205 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes