CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Communicated on 1 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 62824/16 V.M. (no.   2) against the United Kingdom lodged on 24 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention pending deportation. The applicant was detained under immigration powers for the period of 8   August 2008 to 6   July 2011 (2 years, 10 months, 27 days). The present application is the second one made to this Court by the applicant. In her first application the applicant complained about her detention from 8   August   2008 to 28   April   2010. This Court found that during this period, there was a lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities from 19   June   2009 to 14   December   2009. Accordingly, it found a violation of Article   5   §   1 in light of the authorities’ lengthy delay in treating the applicant’s representations in the context of her claim for asylum (see V.M. v.   the United Kingdom , no.   49734/12, §   99-100, 1   September   2016). In its judgment, the Court did not examine the period of detention after 22   July   2010, noting that this was the subject of separate litigation proceedings (see   V.M. , cited above, §   92). The present application concerns that later period of her detention from 22   July   2010 to 6   July   2011 (11 months, 14 days). The High Court and Court of Appeal found that the applicant was detained during this period as a person against whom action was being taken with a view to deportation. The Supreme Court did not examine this issue. The Supreme Court concluded that some of the applicant’s detention reviews did not refer to available medical evidence where they should have done so. However, they also found that even if the reviews had been carried out correctly, the applicant would still have been detained. As a result she would only be entitled to £1 in compensation and given that by the time of the litigation she had already been released, they concluded that it was not necessary to allow her claim. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the conclusions of the Supreme Court and its disposal of her case [1] (see also V.M. v.   the United Kingdom , no.   49734/12, §§   70-73, 1   September   2016), can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34?   2.     Having regard to the grounds for which permission was granted by the Supreme Court to appeal and the agreed statement of facts and issues in those proceedings (see also S.M.M. v.   the United Kingdom , no.   77450/12, §§   53-60, 22   June   2017), has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, was the applicant “lawfully” detained throughout the period from 22   July   2010 to 6   July   2011 as “a person against whom action was being taken with a view to deportation”, notably in light of the Court’s findings in V.M. v.   the United Kingdom , no.   49734/12, 1   September   2016?     [1] .     R (on the application of O) (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (Appellant) v   Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2016] UKSC 19.