ECtHR- Aden Ahmed v. Malta, (Application no. 55352/12, 9 December 2013

Concerning the applicant’s complaints about her detention conditions in Lyster Barracks Detention Centre, Hal Far (Malta) from June 2011 to August 2012, the Court found them as a whole to be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, she complained about the overcrowded dormitories, which lacked heating and proper blankets, the absence of female staff in the centre and lack of access to the recreation yard and fresh air.  The Court considered that her situation was vulnerable because of her irregular migrant status, her past and her personal emotional circumstances in combination with her fragile health [97].

Concerning the alleged violation of Article 5 para 4 on the right of the applicant to a speedy review of the lawfulness of her detention, the Court, taking cue from Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta (no. 2) (Application no. 33740/06), noted that lodging a constitutional application in Malta does not ensure a speedy review of the lawfulness of an applicant’s detention. Making reference to the case of Ibrahim Suzo, where it took the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) more than a year to determine the claim, it reiterated that proceedings before the IAB cannot be considered speedy as required by Article 5 para 4 of the Convention. Based on the above mentioned considerations, the Court concluded that the applicant did not have at her disposal an effective and speedy domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of her detention [123].

The Court further observed that under Article 5 para 1 (f) any deprivation of liberty would be justified only for as long as deportation or extradition proceedings were in progress [144]. In the present case, given that the domestic authorities did not take any steps to pursue removal, it cannot be said that deportation proceedings were in progress. Therefore, the applicant’s detention for fourteen and half months in Lyster Barracks was in violation of Article 5 para 1 of the Convention [146].

With regards to the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 para 2, the Court considered that this complaint was inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month period rule set out in Article 35 para 1 of the Convention and was rejected pursuant to Article 35 para 4 [153].