CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sADDDE81A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sC9281C7C { width:70.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s82AB4EFD { width:38.8pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } Published on 10 June 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5755/25 K.A. against Cyprus lodged on 13 February 2025 communicated on 20 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the detention of the applicant – who entered Cyprus irregularly seeking asylum – on national security grounds from 10   January 2019 until 24 February 2020, and the procedural fairness of the domestic proceedings (nos. 422/2019 and 78/2019) whereby he challenged such detention. These proceedings were terminated on 16 October 2024 through final judgment by the Supreme Constitutional Court. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the lawfulness of his detention in the absence of a deportation order or any criminal proceedings against him. He also complains that his detention was arbitrary on account of its length. The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the judicial review proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention had not fulfilled the requirements of procedural fairness and equality of arms. In particular, material evidence concerning the allegations that he posed a danger to national security was not disclosed to him and he was not granted appropriate alternative counterbalancing procedural safeguards vis-à-vis the limitations of his rights of disclosure on the reasons of his detention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was his deprivation of liberty in line with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness, given inter alia, its length? Was there a sufficiently close connection between the ground relied on to justify detention and the prevention of unauthorised entry (see B.A. v. Cyprus, no.   24607/20, §§ 55-59, 2 July 2024)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the State authorities respected in the present case notably in terms of access to the case file (see, among other authorities, Al   Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no.   2), no. 10112/16, §§   114-15, 25   June 2019, and A. and Others v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§   202 ‑ 11, ECHR 2009)?