CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 97 May 2007 John v. Greece - 199/05 Judgment 10.5.2007 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Circumvention of a domestic law provision on maximum length of detention by re-detaining person ten minutes after release: violation   Article 5-1-f Expulsion Circumvention of a domestic law provision on maximum length of detention pending removal: violation   Facts : The applicant is a Nigerian national. On 29 December 2003 he was arrested with no residence permit on arriving at Athens airport and remanded in custody pending expulsion. Soon after that his expulsion was ordered. On 29 March 2004, when the three-month maximum legal period of detention expired, the applicant’s release was ordered. Before he left the police station where he had been held, however, the police arrested him again, his detention was prolonged and a new expulsion order was issued. He challenged these decisions in court, but to no avail. On 20 June 2004 he was deported to Nigeria. Law : The applicant’s renewed detention had been judged legal under domestic law, but it was necessary to determine whether it was in conformity with Article   5(1) of the Convention. As he had been taken in charge again ten minutes after being released, to all intents and purposes he had never ceased to be detained, as he had never left the police station and his release had merely consisted in the signing of a certificate of release and had never become a reality. The new expulsion order which had subsequently been issued had merely repeated the reasons put forward in the first one, presenting no new justification for the applicant’s renewed detention. It was the Court’s view that the police had acted as they had solely to circumvent the law and present the applicant’s prolonged detention in a seemingly lawful light. The domestic courts had considered that in the applicant’s case it had not been an extension of the initial detention but a new detention based on new material, in particular his intention to travel to Nigeria using false papers. The Court was not persuaded that the existence of these papers was sufficient in itself to justify a new period of detention independent of the first. Unlike in other cases where the law did not lay down clear limits but left the country’s authorities a certain margin of appreciation, Greek law on expulsion provided clearly and specifically, without any exception, for a maximum detention period of three months. In the context described above the Court could not ignore the fact that the authorities had let the legal time limit expire without having the applicant expelled. Between 1 January and 29 March 2004, the competent authorities had failed to show due diligence as they had taken no steps to execute the expulsion order and send the applicant to Nigeria before the statutory period had run out. Furthermore, the Government had presented no reasons that might justify this inertia. Extending the applicant’s detention beyond the three-month limit was accordingly incompatible with the aim of Article   5(1) and therefore unlawful. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41: EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes