CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MYJER

It is clear that the applicant made use of all available legal possibilities to be permitted to stay in Latvia .

He lodged a first asylum application on 23 December 2008 and made use of his procedural rights to appeal against the negative decision. On 3 September 2009 he lodged a sec ond asylum application and on 5 January 2010 a third one. He also made use of his procedural rights to challenge the orders for his detention and his deportation. Throughout the whole of his stay in Latvia (23 December 2008 to 9 January 2010) he was deprived of his liberty, either on grounds of prevent ing unauthorised entry or with a view to deportation.

And yes, I agree with my fellow judges that in that one - year period there were several periods where – according to the provisions of domestic law applicable at the time and the time-limits laid down there in – he should have been set free. It also seems clear that , according to the applicable provisions of domestic law, each time he again applied for asylum a new term started during which he could be legally deprived of his liberty (detention to prevent unauthorised entry). And after a final decision in the asylum proceedings, it was equally clear that he could be detained further under the other heading (detention with a view to deportation). Thus, during the periods in which the applicant was deprived of his liberty, the grounds for his detention did change according to the circumstances. I am prepared to accept that it must have been somewhat difficult for the authorities to know at any given time under which heading the applicant continued to be detained.

However, I was surprised to learn that under the applicable Latvian legislation an asylum applicant seems to have the legal possibility of halting his or her deportation simply by intr oducing a fresh asylum request. If I am correct in this assumption, Latvian law makes it theoretically possible to prolong the procedure indefinitely . Because of the automatic suspensive effect attached to a new asylum request – even when it is the third such request in a short time – I could not but vote with my fellow judges in also finding a violation in respect of the events surrounding the actual deportation of the applicant on 9 January 2010 .