CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 9 March 2020 Published on 30 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10940/17 Masood HAMID against Hungary lodged on 4 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the asylum detention of the applicant, an Afghan national. The applicant arrived in Hungary crossing the border illegally from Serbia. On 29   April 2016 he was apprehended by the Hungarian police. On 30 April 2016 the applicant lodged an asylum request. On the very same day, he was convicted of the offence of unauthorised border crossing by the Szeged District Court and was banned from Hungarian territory for a year. Simultaneously, alien administration proceedings were initiated against the applicant, who at that point in time declared himself an adult. These proceedings were immediately suspended pending the asylum proceedings. On 1   May 2016 the asylum authority ordered the applicant’s 72-hour asylum detention and applied to the Kiskunhalas District Court for an extension until 29 June 2016. On 3 May 2016 the District Court extended the asylum detention until 29   June   2016. In the ongoing asylum proceedings, the applicant again declared himself an adult. On 4   May 2016 the applicant requested the asylum authority to transfer him to an open reception facility, this time stating that he was a minor. He repeated this request on 10   May   2016. On 18   May 2016, at the request of the asylum authority, the applicant gave consent to undergo age-assessment procedure. On 25   May 2016 the asylum authority informed the applicant that, given his previous statements, he was considered an adult until he provided evidence to the contrary. The authority requested the applicant to submit his official documents or advance the costs of the age-assessment procedure. On 29   June 2016 the Kiskunhalas District Court prolonged the asylum detention until 27 August 2016. On 30   June 2016 the applicant requested termination of his asylum detention, again referring to his minor status which would exclude detention. As a proof, he attached his identification documents. The asylum authority received the official translation of these documents on 28   July 2016. On 5   August 2016 the asylum authority terminated the asylum detention of the applicant, accepting that he was a minor. On 18   August 2016 it terminated the asylum proceedings, since the applicant had left for an unknown location. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis O.M. v. Hungary , no.   9912/15, 5   July 2016, Suso Musa v. Malta , no. 42337/12, §§ 100 to 103, 23   July 2013)?