CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2019
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-196448
- Date
- 10 septembre 2019
- Publication
- 10 septembre 2019
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s579A502D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 10 September 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 7077/15 Ahmed AYAD against Hungary and 4 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern asylum detention of the applicants pending a determination of their asylum claims. The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their asylum detention was unjustified, unlawful and arbitrary essentially because the authorities ordered (and, in certain cases, extended) it without examining the legal grounds, their individual circumstances or the applicability of less restrictive measures. The applicants further complain that they did not have an effective remedy which met the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Did the deprivation of liberty, suffered by the applicants, fall within any paragraph of this provision (see O.M. v. Hungary , no. 9912/15, 5 July 2016)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? Did the decisions concerning the review of the applicants’ extended detention comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Year of Birth Nationality Represented by Start and end date of the asylum detention 1 7077/15 Ayad v. Hungary 31/01/2015 1981 Algerian Barbara POHÁRNOK 06/06/2014 to 01/08/2014 2 26250/15 H.N. v. Hungary 26/05/2015 1986 Afghan Barbara POHÁRNOK 13/08/2014 to 26/11/2014 3 26819/15 M.M. v. Hungary 26/05/2015 1997 (to his knowledge) Afghan Tamás FAZEKAS 29/08/2014 to 26/11/2014 4 32038/15 C.H. v. Hungary 22/06/2015 1983 Iranian Barbara POHÁRNOK 04/08/2014 to 23/12/2014 5 48139/16 Nabizedah v. Hungary 10/08/2016 1995 Afghan Barbara POHÁRNOK 16/09/2015 to 11/02/2016  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 10 septembre 2019
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-196448
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel