CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 mars 2017

.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 }   Communicated on 8 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 71008/16 M. B against the Netherlands lodged on 24 November 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant is a Syrian asylum-seeker who after his arrival in the Netherlands was convicted by the Rotterdam Regional Court of a criminal offence. Both the prosecution and the applicant have filed an appeal, which is currently still pending. The applicant´s asylum procedure is still pending before the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Thelosen, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.   On 23 September 2016 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was discontinued as it had attained the length of the prison sentence imposed by the Rotterdam Regional Court. On the same day the applicant was placed in immigration detention (vreemdelingenbewaring) as he was deemed to pose a threat to national security or public order.   The applicant lodged an appeal against his immigration detention submitting that it was in violation of Article 5 of the Convention as it had not been imposed with a view to his removal, which removal, irrespective of the decision on his asylum application, could not be effectuated as the Netherlands do not remove anyone to Syria. The applicant’s appeal and further appeal were dismissed as was his second appeal against his continued detention.   The applicant lodged a third appeal against his continued detention. The Regional Court found that it had been unlawful as of 19   November 2016 for procedural reasons.   The applicant was released on 13 December 2016.   The applicant complains that his placement in immigration detention between 23 September 2016 and 19 November 2016 was contrary to Article   5 §   1   (f) of the Convention.