CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt }   Published on 10 May 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6182/20 L. against Hungary lodged on 23 January 2020 communicated on 20 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness of detention of a Syrian asylum seeker who was allegedly a victim of human trafficking by her family and subjected to sexual violence by her husband. She was detained for about six months, between 29 January and 24 July 2019. Her asylum detention was ordered and then prolonged on several occasions on the basis that there was a risk of her absconding and that no other, less coercive, measures could secure her cooperation with the authorities. On 23 May 2019 her detention was prolonged on the additional basis that she posed a threat to national security. Her detention was terminated when it reached the statutory maximum of six months, with the examination of her asylum claim still pending. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that her detention was arbitrary. In particular, the authorities allegedly provided no reasons relating to her particular circumstances justifying the finding that she presented a flight risk and a threat to national security. As regards the latter, she does not know the basis on which such conclusion was reached. No alternatives to her detention were genuinely considered by the domestic authorities despite her special needs as a vulnerable person in need of psychological support.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see O.M. v. Hungary , no. 9912/15, §§ 40-44, 5 July 2016)?   2.     In particular, did the authorities conduct an individualised assessment of the applicant’s circumstances and provide adequate reasons for ordering and prolonging her detention? Did the authorities consider alternative means of detention in view of the applicant’s circumstances, including her alleged vulnerability as a victim of sexual violence and human trafficking (see, mutatis mutandis , O.M. v. Hungary , cited above, § 53, and Mahamed Jama v. Malta , no. 10290/13, § 140, 26 November 2015 ) ?