CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 janvier 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 104 January 2008 Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 13229/03 Judgment 29.1.2008 [GC] Article 5 Article 5-1-f Prevent unauthorised entry into country Seven-day detention in reception centre for asylum-seeker who had been granted “temporary admission”: no violation   Article 5-2 Information on reasons for arrest 76-hour delay in informing “temporarily admitted” asylum-seeker of the grounds for his later detention in a reception centre: violation   Facts : The applicant, an Iraqi Kurd, fled his country of origin and arrived at London Heathrow Airport on 30   December 2000. He immediately claimed asylum and was granted “temporary admission”. On reporting to the immigration authorities on 2 January 2001, he was detained and transferred to Oakington Reception Centre, which was used for asylum seekers considered unlikely to abscond and whose applications could be dealt with by a “fast-track” procedure. He was handed a standard form that purported to explain the reasons for his detention and his rights, but did not explain that he was being detained for fast-track processing. On 5 January 2001 the applicant’s representative was informed on the telephone by an immigration officer that the reason for the detention was that the applicant was an Iraqi who met the criteria for detention at the reception centre. The applicant’s asylum claim was initially refused on 8   January 2001 and he was formally refused leave to enter the UK. He was released the next day and subsequently granted asylum after successfully appealing against the refusal of leave to enter. He sought judicial review of the decision to detain him. This was ultimately rejected by the House of Lords, which found that detention under the Oakington procedure was proportionate and reasonable. In a judgment of 11 July 2006, a Chamber of the European Court held that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, but a violation of the Article   5 § 2 requirement to give reasons promptly (see Information Note no. 88). Law : Article 5 § 1 (f) (a)   Meaning of the phrase “to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry” : It was a necessary adjunct to the State’s right to control the entry and residence of aliens that it should be permitted to detain would-be immigrants who had applied for permission to enter, whether by way of asylum or otherwise. Until “authorised”, any entry was “unauthorised” and the detention of a person who wished to enter a country and who needed but did not yet have authorisation to do so, could, without any distortion of language, be to “prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry”. The Court did not accept that as soon as an asylum seeker surrendered to the immigration authorities he was seeking to effect an “authorised” entry. Article 5 § 1 (f) did not permit detention only of a person shown to be trying to evade entry restrictions. Such an interpretation would be too narrow and was also inconsistent with United Nations and Council of Europe guidelines and recommendations. (b)   Arbitrariness : The principle that detention should not be arbitrary applied to detention under the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) (unauthorised entry) in the same manner as it applied to detention under the second limb (deportation or extradition). Thus, there was no requirement that detention should reasonably be considered necessary and the principle of proportionality required only that the detention should not continue for an unreasonable length of time. Accordingly, detention under the first limb of Article 5 §   1   (f) would not be arbitrary if it satisfied four conditions: it was carried out in good faith; it was closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry to the country; the place and conditions of detention were appropriate bearing in mind that the detainee might well have fled his home country in mortal fear; and the length of the detention did not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued. It was accepted that the purpose of the Oakington detention regime had been to ensure the speedy resolution of some 13,000 of the approximately 84,000 asylum applications being made annually in the United Kingdom at the time. Achieving that objective had entailed scheduling up to 150 interviews a day and even small delays could disrupt the entire programme. The applicant had been selected for detention on the basis that his case was suited for fast-track processing. The national authorities had thus acted in good faith in detaining the applicant. Indeed the policy behind the creation of the Oakington regime was generally to benefit asylum seekersby dealing with their claims expeditiously. The detention was also closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry since it was intended to enable the authorities to determine the applicant’s asylum claim quickly and efficiently. As regards the place and conditions of detention, the centre was specifically adapted to hold asylum seekers and offered various facilities for recreation, religious observance, medical care and, importantly, legal assistance. The applicant had not complained about the conditions. Finally, his detention for seven days before his release the day after his claim to asylum was refused at first instance could not be said to have exceeded the period reasonably required to enable his claim to asylum to be processed speedily. The Court also noted that the provision of a more efficient system for determining large numbers of asylum claims had rendered unnecessary recourse to a broader and more extensive use of detention powers. Conclusion : no violation (eleven votes to six). Article 5 § 2 – The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that general statements – such as parliamentary announcements – could not replace the need for the individual to be informed of the reasons for his arrest or detention. The first the applicant learnt of the real reason for his detention was through his representative on 5 January 2001, by which point he had already been detained for 76   hours. Assuming that the giving of oral reasons to a representative met the requirements of Article   5 §   2, a delay of that length was not compatible with the requirement for reasons to be given promptly. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes