CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 10 January 2014   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 66166/13 Aladdin NASSR ALLAH against Latvia lodged on 17 October 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicant, Mr Aladdin Nassr Allah, is a Syrian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Mucenieki, Latvia. He is represented before the Court by Ms Dž. Andersone, a lawyer practising in Riga. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the case 3.     On 29 December 2012 the applicant fled Syria and on an unspecified date entered the Russian Federation. It appears that the applicant applied for asylum, but on 4 May 2013 he left the country before his application was examined. 4.     On 4-5 May 2013 the applicant crossed the Latvian border on foot. On 5   May 2013 he was stopped in the border area by the State Border Guard Service ( Valsts roberžsardze ). 2.     Application for asylum in Latvia 5.     On 7 May 2013 an asylum application form was filled in by the State Border Guard Service and signed by the applicant; an Arabic-speaking interpreter was present. 6.     On 7 May 2013 an initial interview ( sākotnējā aptauja ) with the applicant was conducted. The applicant was assisted by an Arab-speaking interpreter. The applicant explained that he could speak, read and write in English and Arabic. 7.     On 16 May 2013 a personal interview ( pārrunas ) with the applicant took place. The applicant was assisted by an Arab-speaking interpreter. 8.     On 27 May 2013 the State Border Guard Service received the applicant’s personal identity card. On 31 May 2013, following a forensic examination, it was declared authentic. 9.     On 28 June 2013 the applicant appointed a lawyer to assist him in the administrative proceedings. 10.     On 4 July 2013 the Asylum Affairs Division ( Patvēruma lietu nodaļa ) of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs ( Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde ) informed the applicant that they have received his application for asylum and that they will examine it within three months. 11.     On 4 October 2013 the Asylum Affairs Division decided to refuse the applicant’s asylum application, however they granted him subsidiary protection status ( alternatīvais statuss ) and issued a temporary residence permit for one year. 12.     The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the administrative courts as he wished to be granted asylum; he considered that subsidiary protection status was not enough. These proceedings are currently pending. 3.     The applicant’s detention 13.     It appears that on 5 May 2013 the applicant was detained on the grounds of section 51, paragraph 2, part 1 of the Immigration Law. 14.     On 7 May 2013 the applicant was detained on the grounds of section 9, paragraph 1, parts 1 and 2 of the Asylum Law. He was placed in a closed facility – an accommodation centre for foreign detainees and asylum seekers ( Aizturēto ārzemnieku un patvēruma meklētāju izmitināšanas centrs ) in Daugavpils (“Daugavpils accommodation centre”). 15.     On 10 May 2013, following a hearing in the applicant’s presence, a judge of the Daugavpils (City) Court ( Dauvgavpils tiesa ) authorised his detention for two months. The judge examined the material brought before him and, with the assistance of an Arab-speaking interpreter, heard evidence from the applicant. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer. The judge concluded that there were grounds to detain him as his identity had not been determined and grounds to consider that he had misused the asylum procedure (section 9, paragraph 1, parts 1 and 2 of the Asylum Law). The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision within 48 hours. 16.     On 5 July 2013 a judge of the Latgale Regional Court ( Latgales apgabaltiesa ), following a written procedure with no hearing, examined and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. He relied on largely the same factual and legal grounds for the applicant’s detention as the first-instance court judge. 17.     On 8 July 2013, following a hearing in the applicant’s presence, the judge of the Daugavpils Court authorised his detention for a further two months; the applicant was assisted by an interpreter. The applicant’s lawyer was not present, however the judge examined her written request to release the applicant taking into account that he had provided his identity documents and that he had not misused the asylum procedure. The judge concluded that there were grounds to detain him under section 9, paragraph 1, part 2 since there was a possibility that the applicant might leave Latvia and thereby obstruct the asylum proceedings as he had already done it before in another country. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision within 48 hours. 18.     On 30 July 2013 another judge of the Latgale Regional Court, following a written procedure with no hearing, examined and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. She agreed that there were grounds to detain the applicant under section 9, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Asylum Law. 19.     On 6 September 2013 the judge of the Daugavpils Court authorised the applicant’s detention for a further two months again on the grounds of section 9, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Asylum Law. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision as the decision of the Asylum Affairs Division was due in less than one month and his previous experience showed that detention appeals took about one month to be examined. 20.     On 4 October 2013 the State Border Guard Service informed the applicant that he had been granted subsidiary protection status but that they could not release him until they received the original of that decision; the relevant authority had sent it by post. 21.     At around 4 p.m. on 7 October 2013 the applicant was released. B.     Relevant domestic law 22.     The relevant domestic law provisions as regards detention of asylum seekers and their rights have been described in Longa Yonkeu v. Latvia (no.   57229/09, §§ 81-82, 84-86, 89-90, 15 November 2011). 23.     In addition, under section 55, paragraph 7 of the Immigration Law the district (city) court shall immediately proceed with examination of a complaint concerning alien’s detention. The regional court’s decision in this regard is final. COMPLAINTS 24.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention in the Daugavpils accommodation centre was unlawful from 5   May to 7 October 2013. His detention was not necessary since there was no evidence that he would flee or obstruct the asylum proceedings. Moreover, his identity was confirmed since 27 May 2013 and the subsequent court decisions authorising further detention were unfounded. Finally, he considers that his detention from 4 to 7 October 2013 was arbitrary and unlawful; he continued to be detained although a positive decision as regards subsidiary protection status was made. 25.     He further alleges, in essence under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, that the appeal procedure to contest lawfulness of his detention was not effective. He is dissatisfied with the lack of speediness in the review by the appellate court and with the fact that these proceedings were conducted in writing and in a language not understood by him.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the detention of the applicant at all times compatible with Article   5 of the Convention?   2.1     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.2.     Did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 5   May and 7   October 2013 fall within paragraph (f) of this provision?   2.3.     Was the applicant’s detention carried out in such a manner as to protect him from arbitrariness (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008)?   3.1.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   3.2.     Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?