CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } Communicated on 3 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29440/16 Hassan HAOUARI against Hungary lodged on 12 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Algerian national married to a Hungarian woman. After his having served a prison sentence for trafficking in human beings, the domestic authorities placed him in alien administrative detention on account of the expulsion order and the eight-year ban on entering Hungary, imposed on him by the final criminal judgment. Subsequently, it was found by a court that the detention from 3 November 2015 had in fact no legal basis; and the applicant was released on 22 April 2016. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s alien administrative detention maintained “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see, mutatis mutandis , Gajcsi v. Hungary , no. 34503/03, § 21, 3 October 2006; Lokpo and Touré v. Hungary , no. 10816/10, § 24, 20 September 2011; X.Y.   v.   Hungary , no. 43888/08, § 28, 19 March 2013)?