CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 février 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 15 February 2000 Aslan v. Malta - 29493/95 Decision 3.2.2000 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-1-f Prevent unauthorised entry into country Detention following refusal of entry due to lack of required visa: inadmissible The applicant, a Turkish national, was working in Libya. He and some colleagues decided to go over to Malta for a short holiday and took a ferry from Tripoli to Malta. At the passport checkpoint, the authorities told them that there was a problem with their return visa to Libya and denied them entry into Malta. The applicant alleged that one of the police officers insulted them for being Muslims and Turkish, making references to long past conflicts between their respective countries. He further contended that the police acted violently towards them. They were placed in a cell pending their return to Libya and were told that they were being sent back there on the ground that they did not have the required return visa. The applicant claimed that they were not given anything to eat or drink during their detention and that access to toilet facilities was restricted. He also submitted that his requests to make a telephone call and have the Turkish consulate informed about his detention were refused. The applicant and his colleagues were eventually embarked on a ferry sailing back to Libya after 10 hours of detention. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1 (f): The applicant’s detention was prescribed by the relevant immigration legislation. The port officials considered on the basis of the documentation produced by the applicant at the border that there were sufficient grounds for refusing him leave to enter. In this respect, Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including Articles 8 and 3, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. It was not necessary to address the applicant’s argument that the sole reason for refusing him leave to appeal and detaining him pending his return to Libya was on account of his nationality or religion: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 3: The making of racist or other provocative utterances by State officials during border controls cannot be condoned. However, and without pre-judging whether any such remarks were directed against the applicant, the conduct described by the applicant did not amount to degrading treatment:   manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 8: There was no interference as such by the port police with the applicant’s exercise of his rights. In the circumstances of the case, including the limited duration of the detention and the absence of a Convention right to enter the territory of the respondent State, there was no appearance of any breach of a positive obligation on the part of the authorities to provide the applicant with access to communication or correspondence facilities. Finally, this Article does not as such guarantee the right to honour and dignity in the absence of any prejudice to an applicant’s right to respect for his private life. The applicant did not substantiate any such prejudice: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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