ECtHR - Amuur v. France, Application no 19776/92, 25 June 1996

The Court took note of the fact that holding third country nationals in international zones involved restrictions upon liberty. Nonetheless, it acknowledged that such confinement was acceptable if it was accompanied by the appropriate safeguards for the person concerned, in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while respecting their international obligations.  What is more, it added that such restriction could not be prolonged excessively [43].

Turning to the case at hand, the Court observed that the applicants, while held in the airport’s transit zone, were under strict police surveillance without access to legal or social assistance [45].

Furthermore, the Court held that the fact that an asylum-seeker can leave voluntarily the country where he/she wishes to take refuge cannot exclude a restriction on liberty [48]. In addition, the right to leave any country-including one’s own- as guaranteed by Protocol No. 4 of the Convention, can become theoretical if no other country offers protection similar to the one they were expecting to find in the country they sought asylum [48]. The Court concluded that holding the applicants in the transit zone of the airport resulted in a deprivation of liberty [49].

It further examined whether this deprivation of liberty was compatible with paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention.

In this respect, the Court noted that by holding the applicants in the international airport of Paris, they became subject to French law [52].

It further emphasized that the domestic law did not provide for legal, humanitarian and social assistance, nor did they lay down procedures and time-limits [53]. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 5 para 1 [54].