ECtHR- Horshill v. Greece, Application no. 70427/11, 1 November 2013

The Court noted that the applicant had been detained for fifteen days in the premises of two police stations. Taking cue from its jurisprudence as well as reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Court noted that the premises of the police were not appropriate places for the detention of people awaiting the application of an administrative measure. It further highlighted that they were destined to accommodate persons for very short periods [47].  Taking into consideration the different aspects of the applicant’s detention, namely the space at his disposal, access to ventilation and light, access to outdoor activities and possibility of intimacy in the cells, the Court concluded that the applicant was detained in conditions of overcrowding during four days of the total of fifteen days [49]. Concerning the remaining eleven days of detention, the Court recalled the Greek law that prohibits the detention of defendants and accused persons in the premises of the police except for periods absolutely necessary for their transfer to prison [52]. Under these circumstances, the Court estimated that the applicant has been subjected to an inhuman and degrading treatment that was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention [53].

Concerning the allegations under Article 5 para 1 of the Convention, the Court noted that the applicant had been detained based on the Presidential Decree no. 114/2010-transposing the Directive 2005/85/EC into national law- by which detention of asylum seekers was authorised where they had no travel documents and it was necessary to verify their identity, the circumstances of entry into the country and genuine information about their origin [61]. The Court held that this was undoubtedly the case for the applicant.

It further highlighted that it appeared from the decision of 29 April2011 that the applicant’s placement in detention was not automatic. In addition, the President of the Tribunal Court explained the impossibility of applying in the present case measures other than detention, given that the applicant had neither residence nor stable means of subsistence in Greece [62]. The applicant had made use of available remedies against his detention, which were all rejected by reasoned decisions.

In addition, the Court noted that the applicant had been immediately released by a decision of the police director of Thesprotia, fifteen days after his placement in detention, when the authorities were assured that he was going to be hosted by the NGO “Médecins du Monde"[64]. In view of the above mentioned, the Court considered that the applicant’s detention was not arbitrary and considered it as "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 para 1 (f) of the Convention.

The Court rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 para 2 as inadmissible in conjunction with Article 35 §§ 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.