Published on 23 May 2022

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 24607/20 B.A. against Cyprus lodged on 23 June 2020 communicated on 5 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Syrian national from Daraa. On 8 February 2019 he sought asylum in Cyprus. On 11 February 2019 he was detained by the immigration authorities at Menoyia Detention Centre for holding illegal immigrants on grounds of national security. On 27 March 2019 he filed a recourse with the Administrative Court (no. 442/2019) challenging the order for his detention. On 25 April 2019 the Administrative Court dismissed his recourse. On 7 May 2019 the applicant filed an appeal (no. 81/2019) challenging the outcome of the recourse. On 20 July 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

In the meantime, on 2 July 2019 the Asylum Service decided that the applicant was not deserving of international protection as it appeared that he had committed war crimes. Judicial proceedings (no. 74/2019) challenging this decision are pending.

On 17 January 2020 the applicant unsuccessfully filed a habeas corpus application challenging the length of his detention. He later filed an appeal (no. 96/2020) which was dismissed on 8 June 2021.

On 30 November 2021 the Civil Registry and Migration Department decided to release the applicant on certain terms.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the lawfulness of his detention in the absence of a deportation order or criminal conviction, and criminal proceedings. He further complains that his detention was arbitrary as the purpose pursued was never specified and it was excessively long. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the judicial review proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention had not respected the principle of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, nor was he granted access to sufficiently counterbalancing measures for the limitation of his rights. Lastly, he complains under the same head that the appeal proceedings (no. 81/2019) had not been speedy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities rely on any permissible ground on which persons may be deprived of their liberty provided in sub ‑ paragraphs of Article 5 § 1? Could it be said that his detention was in line with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness?

The parties are invited to consider, inter alia , Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 3727/08, §§ 57-66, 7 February 2012, A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009, as well as Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 88, 15 December 2016).

2. Bearing in mind the applicant’s complaints, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? (see, inter alia, Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2) , no. 10112/16, § 115, 25 June 2019, Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 5201/11, § 149, ECHR 2015 (extracts), A. and Others v. the United Kingdom , cited above, §§ 202-211, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy , cited above, § 132, and M.A. v. Cyprus , no. 41872/10, §§ 160-163, ECHR 2013 (extracts))?