CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 21 June 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 75727/17 G.H. against Hungary lodged on 20 October 2017 communicated on 31 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the detention of an Iraqi national awaiting his deportation to his country of origin between 3 January and 21 April 2017. The applicant’s asylum application was rejected by the asylum authority on 29 July 2016 and, at the same time, his expulsion to Iraq was ordered. The court decision rejecting his appeal was served on his representative on 6   January 2017. On 3 January 2017 the execution of his expulsion was suspended until the necessary travel documents and means for his travel were secured. At that point he was placed in administrative detention on the ground that there was a risk of him absconding and that no other, less coercive, measures could secure his cooperation with the authorities. Following two prolongations of the measure, his detention was terminated on 21 April 2017 as it became evident that his deportation could not be carried out within the time allowed for detention, due to the Iraqi embassy’s failure to issue a passport for him. The immigration authority ordered him to reside in his partner’s flat, which was designated as his compulsory place of residence following his release. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention with a view to deportation was not lawful. He submits in particular that in the period 3 to 6 January 2017, in the absence of the decision rejecting his appeal being served on him, his detention had no legal basis whatsoever and did not fall under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.   Furthermore, his detention between 6 January and 21 April 2017 was arbitrary, because it was not justified, the immigration authority acted in bad faith and no alternatives to his detention were genuinely considered. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 3 January and 21 April 2017 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Nabil and others v Hungary , 62116/12, §§ 26-44, 22 September 2015)?