CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34126/21 R.A. against Hungary lodged on 6 July 2021 communicated on 30 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness of the detention of a Syrian asylum seeker who was suffering from chronic medical problems and the proceedings for judicial review of that detention. On 30 January 2020 the applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, expulsion and a four ‑ year re-entry ban for illegally crossing the border between Serbia and Hungary. On 28 April 2020, while still in prison, he submitted an asylum application which was rejected on 24 July 2020. The asylum authority also ordered his expulsion to Syria. The applicant’s request for judicial review of the decision was to no avail. After serving his prison sentence, as the asylum and immigration authority found that there was a risk of his absconding and the Office for Constitutional Protection ( Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal – hereinafter “the CPO”) also considered him to pose a risk to national security he was placed in asylum detention on 27   January 2021, and following his expulsion decision becoming final, in immigration detention on 15 June 2021. His asylum and immigration detention was prolonged several times, relying on the same grounds. The applicant unsuccessfully requested to access the classified assessment of the CPO: his request was dismissed by the CPO on 3   November 2020 and its decision was upheld by the Budapest High Court on 19 April 2021. He was released from detention on 9 July 2021. He is currently residing in Germany. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the asylum authority failed to justify its finding that there was a risk of his absconding and, by not examining the classified data and only presuming that the CPO’s conclusions are valid, a threat to national security. He further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to perform a substantive review of the lawfulness of his detention, no alternatives to it were genuinely considered despite the seriousness of his medical condition and the courts automatically accepted the CPO’s conclusions. As the basis on which that conclusion was reached has never been disclosed to him, he did not have the possibility to effectively challenge the allegations against him, violating the principle of “equality of arms”. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the applicant’s detention between 27 January and 15   June 2021 (asylum detention) and 15 June and 9 July 2021 (immigration detention) did the authorities rely on any permissible ground on which persons may be deprived of their liberty provided in any of the sub‑paragraphs of Article   5 §   1? If so, on which? Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention with respect to any of the above two periods of the applicant’s detention (see, inter alia , Suso Musa v. Malta , no.   42337/12, §§ 90-93 and 97, 23 July 2013, and M.H. and S.B. v. Hungary , nos.   10940/17 and 15977/17, §§ 66-70 and 73-74, 22 February 2024)?   2.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In view of his complaint that he had not been given the information necessary to know the nature of the national security allegations against him, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, inter alia , A. and Others v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§ 202-11, ECHR 2009, Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2) , no. 10112/16, § 115, 25   June   2019, and Al-Nashif v.   Bulgaria , no. 50963/99, § 92, 20 June 2002)?