CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 2015

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 8 September 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30771/13 Ahmed SHEHADA against Croatia lodged on 15 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ahmed Shehada, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Egypt who was born in 1964 and lives in Tuzla. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Baotić, a lawyer practising in Županja. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant lived and worked in Croatia on the basis of a residence permit issued by the Ministry of the Interior ( Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske ; hereinafter “the Ministry”). On 24 October 2008 he was arrested by police officers of the Zagreb Police Department ( Policijska uprava zagrebačka ) and questioned about his brother, who had allegedly been killed by the Israelis. He was not properly informed of his rights, nor was he advised of his right to instruct a lawyer. Following the applicant’s questioning, the Zagreb Police Department issued a decision which authorised his expulsion from Croatia and banned him from entering the country for a period of five years. The decision contained no reasons for the expulsion. The applicant challenged that decision before the Ministry, and on 2   December 2008 the Ministry dismissed his appeal as ill-founded. It stressed that the applicant’s expulsion had been ordered on the basis of information provided by the domestic intelligence services to the effect that his expulsion was required on the grounds of national security. The Ministry also found that the applicant should have been made aware of the reasons for his expulsion by virtue of his questioning by the police, and that those reasons could not be set out in the decision authorising his expulsion. The applicant challenged that decision before the High Administrative Court ( Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ), and on 2 February 2012 the Administrative Court dismissed his action as ill-founded, endorsing the Ministry’s findings. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), which on 21   November 2012 dismissed it, upholding the previous decisions authorising the applicant’s expulsion. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 7 December 2012. Meanwhile, the applicant asked for the length of his ban on entering Croatia to be reduced, and on 31 December 2012 the Zagreb Police Department dismissed his request as unfounded. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 that he was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty and expelled from Croatia, without having the benefit of adequate procedural safeguards.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention?   2.     Did the decision to expel the applicant – an alien who was lawfully resident in the territory of the respondent State – comply with the procedural requirements of Article   1 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? Was the decision to expel the applicant necessary within the meaning of Article 1 § 2 of Protocol No. 7?