CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 27 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30430/25 K.P. against Cyprus lodged on 6 October 2025 communicated on 8 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Iranian recognised refugee residing in Cyprus since 2002. He was arrested on 3 November 2023 on suspicion of being involved in terrorist activity. He was placed in remand detention for eight days and upon renewal on 11 November 2023 for a further eight days. By letter of 18 November 2023, the Director of the Migration Department informed him of her decision to deport him to a safe country because he posed a threat to national security. On 19 November 2023 he was handed detention and deportation orders whereby he was also informed that he was considered a ‘prohibited migrant’ under the Aliens and Immigration Law. He was transferred to Menoyia detention centre on that day. On 12 December 2023 the applicant lodged recourse no. 2094/23 before the Administrative Court challenging the above decisions. He also sought an interim order suspending the effect of the decisions, which was provisionally granted from 15 until 20 December 2023, resulting in the suspension of his deportation and his conditional release from detention. During the scheduled hearing of 20 December 2023, the parties informed the Administrative Court that they had agreed that the authorities would refrain from deporting the applicant while he would remain in detention until the end of the recourse proceedings. The applicant alleges that he had received threats connected to that agreement. On 1 March 2024 the Administrative Court ruled that it had had no jurisdiction to review the decision declaring the applicant a prohibited migrant, nor the applicant’s deportation as only the International Protection Administrative Court had jurisdiction to review decisions taken pursuant to the Refugee Law. It merely reviewed the decision to place the applicant in detention and found it to be lawful, necessary and proportionate, thus dismissing recourse no. 2094/23 in its entirety. The applicant did not appeal. Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully sought three habeas corpus applications before the Supreme Court with an appeal against the third one (habeas corpus application no. 224/25 dismissed on 15 October 2025) possibly still pending. It appears that the applicant remains in detention. In their judgments regarding the applicant’s detention the domestic courts relied on confidential documents handed to them by the Government but not disclosed to the applicant. In the meantime, on 6 October 2025 the Court applied Rule 39 for a limited time, following the applicant’s request to prevent his removal to Iran. On 24   October 2025 the Court prolonged the measure for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he is facing removal to Iran where he faces a real risk of harm, as a recognised refugee. He also alleges not having access to an effective domestic remedy concerning his expulsion because the Administrative Court refused jurisdiction to examine his removal and failed to remit the case to the International Protection Administrative Court as per the provisions of section 11B of the Law on the Establishment and Functioning of the Administrative Court (131(Ι)/2015). The applicant further complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequacy of the conditions of his detention at Menoyia detention centre. In particular, he complains of occasional overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate time allowed outside the cell. Under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about the lawfulness of his detention which is solely based on grounds of national security. Moreover, he argues that section 29 of the Refugee Law does not provide for detention of recognised refugees. He further complains about the length of his detention being unjustified in view of the difficulties and inability to expel him. The applicant lastly complains under Article 5 § 4 that the judicial review proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention, and the habeas corpus proceedings had not respected the principle of equality of arms as he did not have access to the confidential evidence against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaint under Article 3 concerning his deportation, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation to Iran? The Government are invited to specify whether they are taking steps to remove the applicant to Iran, and if not, to indicate the country to which the applicant is to be removed.   3.     Before deciding on his deportation, did the authorities consider the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment if returned to Iran, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? ( see K.I. v. France , no. 5560/19, §§   117-125, 15 April 2021).   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see M.A. v. Cyprus , no. 41872/10, §§ 131-133, ECHR 2013 (extracts))? Reference is made to the applicant’s submission that the Administrative Court was under a legal obligation to remit parts of recourse no. 2094/23 to the International Protection Administrative Court. Reference is also made to the Administrative Court’s provisional suspension of the applicant’s deportation between 15 and 20 December 2023.   5.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaint under Article 3 concerning the conditions of his detention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 97, 10 January 2012 and Danilczuk v.   Cyprus , no. 21318/12, §§ 39-47, 3 April 2018)?   6.     Do the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in Menoyia detention centre amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, 20 October 2016)?   7.     Is the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities rely on any permissible ground on which persons may be deprived of their liberty provided in sub ‑ paragraphs of Article 5 § 1? Could it be said that his detention is in line with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, inter alia, A. and Others v.   the   United Kingdom   [GC], no.   3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009 and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy   [GC], no.   16483/12, § 88, 15 December 2016 and B.A.   v.   Cyprus , no. 24607/20, §§ 57-59, 2 July 2024)? 8.     Bearing in mind the applicant’s complaints, 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, inter alia, Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2) , no. 10112/16, §   115, 25 June 2019, Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 5201/11, §   149, ECHR 2015 (extracts), A. and Others v. the United Kingdom , cited above, §§   202-211, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy , cited above, § 132)?   The applicant is requested to submit factual information on the status of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of habeas corpus application no. 224/25.