CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 26275/25 Fadil Abdullah JUBURI against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 14 August 2025 communicated on 9 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, an Iraqi national, arrived illegally in Bosnia and Herzegovina, through the Balkan route, in 2022. He has been detained with a view to his deportation on national-security grounds since 20 May 2024. The applicant complains that he has not been given adequate information about the specific allegations against him which would allow him to effectively challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He relies on Article   5 §§   2 and 4 of the Convention. On 27 March 2025 the Constitutional Court dismissed his appeal because the applicant had had the possibility of obtaining access to the closed material through a security-cleared advocate and he had failed to use it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant adequately informed of the reasons for his detention, as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention? 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 (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   3455/05, §§ 202-224, ECHR 2009, and Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2) , no. 10112/16, §§ 114-122, 25 June 2019)? In particular, could the use of a security-cleared advocate counterbalance procedural unfairness caused by the lack of full disclosure in the present case?   3.     Under what conditions is someone who cannot afford legal assistance from a security-cleared advocate entitled to receive it for free?   4.     Are local non-governmental organisations, such as Vaša prava (the applicant’s representative), entitled to seek security clearance? If so, why has the applicant’s representative not sought it?   5.     Has the applicant sought full or partial disclosure of information held by the Intelligence-Security Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning him under sections 88 and 91 of the Intelligence-Security Agency Act 2004? If not, why not?