CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 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 } .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 }   Published on 12 July 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3158/20 H. G. D. against Serbia lodged on 12 December 2019 communicated on 21 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the placing and confinement of an Iranian applicant between 31 October and 25   November 2021 in the transit zone of Belgrade Airport. In particular, the immigration authorities denied the applicant entry to Serbia following his arrival from Istanbul and attempt to use a forged Israeli passport to enter Serbia. They confined him without any formal order and in allegedly deplorable conditions at the airport’s premises reserved for persons not authorised to enter Serbian territory, pending his deportation to Turkey. The authorities allegedly refused to register his asylum claim on several occasions, despite his assertions that he had fled his country of origin fearing persecution on grounds of religion, being a convert from Islam to Christianity. Pursuant to an interim measure granted by the Court in November 2016 in another case brought by the applicant, he was granted access to a lawyer, an interpreter and ultimately to asylum proceedings. On 25 November 2016, the immigration officers adopted a decision on the applicant’s police confinement (“ zadržavanje ”) for 48 hours. In May 2019 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as being manifestly ill-founded, finding essentially that his placement in the transit zone for twenty five days for the purpose of forceable removal could not amount to a deprivation of liberty under domestic law. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his stay at the transit zone constituted an arbitrary deprivation of liberty as he was detained without being informed of the reasons of his detention, without being brought before a judicial authority and provided with an interpreter into his native tongue. He further alleges that his rights to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and to seek compensation were violated. After having left Serbia in 2017 and resided in Switzerland with a status of an asylum seeker until 2020, the applicant is currently detained in the United Kingdom and has a fresh asylum claim pending before the British authorities.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s confinement by the immigration officers in the transit zone of Belgrade International Airport, in the period between 31   October and 25 November 2016, in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (see Amuur v. France , 25 June 1996, §§   42-43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III; Shamsa v.   Poland , nos.   45355/99 and 45357/99, §§ 45-60, 27 November 2003; and Riad and Idiab v.   Belgium , nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 68-78, 24 January 2008)?   2.     Was the applicant’s confinement “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   3.     Was the applicant informed promptly, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective and accessible procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his confinement, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   5.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Nolan and K. v.   Russia , no. 2512/04, §§ 102-105, 12   February 2009)?