CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 mars 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          Application No. 21580/93                       by D.B.                       against Finland         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 March 1996, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 18 March 1993 by D.B. against Finland and registered on 25 March 1993 under file No. 21580/93;         Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 12 December 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant's counsel on 11 February 1996;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Liberian citizen, born in 1970. Before the Commission he is represented by Markku Fredman, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   Particular circumstances of the case         On 2 February 1993 at 22.55 hours the applicant was apprehended by the City Police of Helsinki. When requested by a police officer to identify himself, he had been unable to present any official document showing his particulars. It transpires from a subsequent detention order of 3 February 1993 (see below), that he was therefore detained for identification purposes pursuant to section 19 of the 1966 Police Act (poliisilaki 84/66, polislag 84/66).         According to the Government, the legal basis for the applicant's detention as from 2 February 1993 was actually section 13, subsection 2 of the Police Act and not the erroneously indicated section 19.         The applicant was detained in a cell intended for suspects at the police headquarters of Pasila, Helsinki.         On 3 February 1993 at 19.30 hours the deprivation of the applicant's liberty was converted into detention pursuant to sections 45, 46 and 47 of the 1991 Aliens Act (ulkomaalaislaki 378/91, utlänningslag 378/91). The aim of this detention was to have the applicant expelled.         On 5 February 1993 the City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) of Helsinki prolonged the applicant's detention under the Aliens Act by two weeks, since he had no residence permit in Finland, was incapable of supporting himself and could be expected to evade his future expulsion. The applicant was transferred to the Helsinki County Prison.         On 7 February 1993 the applicant requested asylum in Finland.         On 19 February 1993 the City Court again prolonged the applicant's detention by two weeks but on 5 March 1993 it rejected a further prolongation request. It appears that the applicant was then released. In the autumn of 1993 he left Finland for Sweden.   Relevant domestic law   1.     Detention for identification purposes         According to the Police Act, everyone shall, if requested, provide a police officer on duty with information necessary for the identification of the person. A police officer may apprehend, for identification purposes, a person whose identity is unknown, who refuses to provide information enabling his identification or who gives information which is presumably false. An apprehended person must be released as soon as he or she has been identified and at the latest within 24 hours (section 13, subsection 2, as amended by Act no. 453/87).   2.     Detention for preventive purposes         A police officer has the right to remove or apprehend and temporarily detain a person who makes noise or otherwise behaves in a manner causing immediate danger to public order or security or who issues threats or otherwise behaves in a manner leading to the conclusion that he is likely to commit an offence. Detention for preventive purposes may last only as long as the above-mentioned danger or the likelihood that the detainee would commit an offence exists. At any rate, the detainee must be released within 24 hours (section 19 of the Police Act, as amended by Act no. 453/87).   3.     Detention in accordance with the Aliens Act         Pending a decision as to whether an alien shall be allowed to enter the country, alternatively be returned or expelled, or pending another resolution of the matter, he or she may be ordered to report to the police regularly (section 45, subsection 1 of the Aliens Act, as in force at the relevant time). If there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she will go into hiding or commit criminal offences in the country, the alien may be detained (section 46).         Up to 1 January 1994 an alien detained in accordance with the Aliens Act was to be placed in facilities especially reserved or otherwise suitable for this purpose (section 47, as in force at the relevant time). According to the relevant travaux préparatoires, such detention could only for particularly weighty reasons be implemented on premises for suspects or in a prison (Government Bill no. 47/90, p. 19). Detention pursuant to the Aliens Act was otherwise to be governed by the provisions for the treatment of prisoners on remand, as far as these were applicable (section 47, as in force at the relevant time).         As of 1 January 1994 an alien detained in accordance with the Aliens Act shall be placed in facilities suitable for this purpose (section 47, as amended by Act no. 639/93). According to the relevant travaux préparatoires, the economic situation in Finland had rendered it impossible to implement detention under the Aliens Act in facilities especially reserved for this purpose. Therefore it was now, as a rule, to be implemented in a prison or on detention premises of the police (Government Bill no. 293/92, p. 11).         The competent court shall be notified of a detention in accordance with the Aliens Act at the latest on the day after it has been ordered, if necessary first by telephone and subsequently by a confirmation in writing. The court must consider the grounds for the detention without delay and at any rate within a period of four days from the detention. The court shall proceed as when considering a request for detention on remand (section 48 of the Aliens Act).   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complained that the deprivation of his liberty from 2 February 1993 at 22.55 hours to 3 February 1993 at 19.30 hours for the purpose of verifying his identity violated Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention. He considered that he was not a danger to public order or security and had not threatened to commit a crime. The conditions for his detention in accordance with section 19 of the Police Act were therefore not met.   2.     The applicant furthermore complained that the deprivation of his liberty as from 3 February 1993 at 19.30 hours pursuant to the Aliens Act was also in violation of Article 5 para. 1. He submitted that no particularly weighty reasons existed for not implementing his detention on premises prescribed in section 47 of the Aliens Act.   3.     The applicant finally alleged that the successive application of the Police Act and the Aliens Act circumvented the time-limit for the court review prescribed in section 48 of the Aliens Act. Since he was detained on 2 February 1993 the City Court of Helsinki should have been informed of his detention at the latest on 3 February and not on 4 February 1993. He again invoked Article 5 para. 1.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 18 March 1995 and registered on 25 March 1993.         On 11 September 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.         On 20 November 1995 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that he was unaware of the applicant's whereabouts.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 12 December 1995, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant's representative replied on 11 February 1996.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The applicant complains that the deprivation of his liberty in February 1993 was in violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention.         The Government principally submit that the application should be struck off the Commission's list of cases in pursuance of Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention. The applicant's behaviour shows that he does not intend to pursue his application and no particular reason would justify the further examination of the case in such circumstances. The Government stress that section 47 of the Aliens Act was amended subsequent to the applicant's detention and no longer requires that an alien detained in accordance with this law should be placed in facilities especially reserved or otherwise suitable for this purpose.         The applicant's counsel opposes a strike-off, fearing that it might be impossible for his client to inform him of his present whereabouts. In addition, general considerations strongly militate in favour of pursuing the Commission's examination, since the detention of asylum seekers is a widely debated issue in Europe. It is true that the Aliens Act was amended so as to avoid that asylum seekers are detained unlawfully. However, this amendment weakened their protection and in Finland most detained asylum seekers are now being held in isolation for 23 hours a day.         The Commission notes that the applicant has not informed his counsel before the Commission of his whereabouts since he left Finland in 1993. In these circumstances the Commission finds it reasonable to conclude pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention that he does not intend to pursue his application.         In accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine the Commission must also determine the possible existence of special circumstances regarding respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which would require a further examination of the present application. Such a question can arise in particular where, through the applicant's individual case, the Commission is concerned with the legislation, legal system or practice of the respondent State.         There is no appearance of any special circumstances of the above-mentioned character which would require that the examination of the present application be pursued. The Commission observes, in particular, that section 47 of the Aliens Act, the application of which was challenged by the applicant, was amended subsequent to his detention. As regards counsel's further allegation that asylum-seekers in Finland are currently being detained in isolation for 23 hours a day, it has not been argued that such detainees are being prevented from lodging their own applications with the Commission.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (S. TRECHSEL)