CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 août 2022

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 12 September 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 43556/20 A.S.K. against the United Kingdom lodged on 3 October 2020 communicated on 23 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 18 January 2013, the applicant, a Pakistani national with a history of mental health issues, was detained in an Immigration Removal Centre (“IRC”) pending removal. On 9 February 2013, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and assessed as fit to be detained but unfit to fly. On 13   April 2013, the consultant psychiatrist at the IRC recommended his transfer to a psychiatric hospital but no transfer took place. On 18 July 2013, the Home Secretary accepted that the applicant could not lawfully be removed from the United Kingdom and should be transferred to a hospital. On 25 July 2013, the applicant, acting through the Official Solicitor, commenced judicial review proceedings to challenge his detention in the IRC on, inter alia , Article 5 § 1 grounds. On 23 September 2013, he was transferred to a psychiatric unit under section 48 of the Mental Health Act   1983. In February 2017, the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim that his detention prior to his transfer to a psychiatric unit had been unlawful under Article 5 § 1. His appeal to the Court of Appeal against this aspect of the decision was unsuccessful and his request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 8 April 2020. The application to this Court was lodged by the Official Solicitor on the applicant’s behalf. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of any period of the applicant’s detention in the IRC between 9   February 2013 and 23 September 2013?   2.     In particular, did the authorisation for the applicant’s detention and the execution of his detention in the IRC in the periods from (i) 9 February 2013, (ii)   13   April 2013, and (iii) 18 July 2013, genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (see, for example, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   13229/03, § 69, ECHR 2008)? Specifically:   (a)     did the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in the IRC between 9   February 2013 and 23 September 2013 fall within paragraph (f) of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the applicant detained at all times “with a view to deportation” (see, for example, J.N. v. the United Kingdom , no.   37289/12, §   81, 19 May 2016)?   (b)     did any period of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in the IRC between 9   February 2013 and 23 September 2013 fall within paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was there a link between the aim of the deprivation of liberty and the conditions in the IRC in which it took place (see, for example, Rooman v.   Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§   194-211, 31   January 2019)?