DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CONFORTI JOINED BY JUDGES LEVITS AND KOVLER

( Translation )

I regret that I cannot concur with the majority in this case. Whilst I do not find the position adopted by the Court in Ashingdane very convincing and think that it may merit some reappraisal, I find it difficult to agree that there are substantial differences between Ashingdane and the present case. In my opinion it is the analogies between the two cases that are important, the differences being insignificant. The crucial point is that in both cases there was a transition from a stricter form of detention to a more liberal one. In both cases therefore the detention did not cease to be – to use the words of the Court in Ashingdane – a “lawful detention” entailing any greater limitations than those provided for under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 21 ‑ 22, § 47). This being so, I do not think it is possible to find that there has been a violation of the Convention.