ECtHR - Hendrin Ali Said and Aras Ali Said v. Hungary, Application No. 13457/11
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Country of Applicant:
Iraq
Date of Decision:
23-10-2012
Citation:
Application No. 13457/11
Court Name:
ECtHR Second Section
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention > Art 31
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention > Art 32
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention > Art 33
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 5
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 18
European Union Law > EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003
European Union Law > EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008
Headnote:
The case concerned complaints under Article 5 § 1 by asylum
seekers staying at the Debrecen Reception Centre for Refugees (Hungary) about the unlawfulness of their detention – without effective judicial review – pending the outcome of their asylum claims.
Facts:
The applicants are Iraqi nationals, who were born in 1992 and 1989 respectively. They left Iraq in August 2009 and irregularly entered Hungary, where they made a first asylum attempt before travelling irregularly to the Netherlands with the help of traffickers. Intercepted in the Netherlands, they were
transferred back to Hungary in September 2010 under the Dublin II procedure. They claimed asylum, alleging that they had been persecuted in Iraq because of their father’s former service in Saddam Hussein’s army and their Kurdish ethnicity.The alien policing authority ordered the applicants’ expulsion to Iraq, also imposing a five-year entry ban. However, later the asylum authority registered their asylum claims and admitted them into in-merit procedure. Despite this fact, the applicants remained in alien policing detention although asylum seekers were entitled to accommodation in an open refugee reception centre.
Decision & Reasoning:
The applicants complained that they had been unlawfully detained and denied an effective judicial review of that detention. The Court observed that the subject matter of the application was very similar to that of the Lokpo and Touré case.
“…The Court reiterated that the formal “lawfulness” of detention under domestic law is the primary but not always the decisive element in assessing the justification of deprivation of liberty. It must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1, which to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion. … The Court found that the applicants were deprived of their liberty by virtue of the mere silence of an authority – a procedure which in the Court’s view verges on arbitrariness. In this connection the Court reiterated that the absence of elaborate reasoning for an applicant’s deprivation of liberty renders that measure incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness inherent in Article 5 of the Convention.”
In the instant case the applicants were deprived of their liberty for a substantial period of time essentially because the refugee authority had not initiated their release. The Court concluded that the procedure followed by the Hungarian authorities displayed the same flaws as in the case of Lokpo and Touré.
This consideration alone enabled the Court to find that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention.
Outcome:
Violation of Article 5 § 1
EUR 10,000 awarded to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,515 to the applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses.
Observations/Comments:
The decision became final on 23/01/2013
The AIRE Centre and UNHCR intervened in the proceedings as third parties in accordance with Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
Case Law Cited:
ECtHR - Mansur v Turkey, Series A No. 319-B § 55
ECtHR - Darvas v Hungary, Application No. 19547/07
ECtHR - Khudoyorov v Russia, Application No. 6847/02
ECtHR - Case of Saadi v United Kingdom (Application no.13229/03) - (UP)
Attachment(s):
Authentic Language:
English
State Party:
Hungary
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Hungary - Act II of 2007 on Admission and Right of Residence of Third Country Nationals
Hungary - Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum
Hungary - Decree No. 301/2007 on the implementation of the Act on Asylum
