further points out that Article 5 § 1 may apply to deprivations of liberty of a very short duration, where applicants are stopped for a search for a period not exceeding thirty minutes (see Gillan and Quinton

Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Gillan and Quinton v. the United

purposes of a search for a period which did not exceed thirty minutes during which they were entirely deprived of any freedom of movement and were obliged to remain where they were (see Gillan and Quinton

such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Gillan and Quinton

In view of the above circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant’s arrest and subsequent detention constituted a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see Gillan and Quinton

    The Government submitted some statistical data for 2009-11 aimed at demonstrating (by contrast to the Court’s findings in Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom , no.

Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see, among other authorities, Gillan and Quinton