ECtHR – Haghilo v. Cyprus, Application No. 47920/12, 26 March 2019

Art. 3 ECHR - detention conditions

Admissibility

The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant did not raise a complaint regarding the detention conditions before the Supreme Court. The procedures proposed by Cyprus could not be regarded as an effective remedy, as the domestic court’s jurisdiction is limited to duration-related complaints. The Court also rejected the preliminary objection that the applicant’s complaints regarding his detention at Famagusta Police station, the first place of detention, had been lodged out of the six-months limit under Art. 35 § 1 of the Convention, as that limit started from the cessation of detention at the last location, since all detention facilities were similar (police stations) and the conditions did not differ either.

Merits

The Court reiterated that in the context of deprivation of liberty, in order for it to fall under Article 3, the suffering and humiliation involved must, in any event, go beyond that inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with detention. Police stations and other similar establishments are by their nature designed to accommodate people for very short duration, making them inappropriate for the detention of people who are waiting for the application of an administrative measure, such as deportation.

Moreover, the Court emphasised that, according to reports, the existing police detention facilities in Cyprus were only suitable for accommodating detained persons for a maximum period of a few days. It noted in particular the lack of possibility for outdoor exercise, limited personal space in cells, as well as lack of natural light and fresh air. In view of these conditions and the significant duration of detention, the Court found the applicant was subject to degrading treatment prohibited by Art. 3 of the Convention.  

Art. 5 § 1 (f) ECHR - lawfulness of detention

Admissibility

The Court rejected the objection that the applicant’s complaints were inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as far as they concerned the period of detention subsequent to the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favour. The Court pointed out that the applicant's successful habeas corpus application had been rendered ineffective since he was rearrested immediately after the release ordered by the judicial authority. The applicant could not be expected to lodge another identical habeas corpus application; the applicant’s choice to bring an action against the lawfulness of the new detention and deportation orders was reasonable and was the only avilable remedy at the time.

Merits

According to Art. 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention a person may be deprived of his liberty with a view to deportation. Nevertheless, the Court reiterated that any detention legitimate under Art. 5 of the Convention must be lawful, namely in conformity with the Convention and with national law. The domestic judicial authority (the Supreme Court) had already ruled that the period of detention exceeding the six-months limit was unlawful. The Court also remarked that the applicant was released following the ruling in his favour, but was immediately rearrested on the same legal grounds cited in the first detention order, namely with a view to his deportation. The Government itself admitted that there was no legal basis to do so. The Court found that this act violated Artilcle 5 (1) f ECHR.