CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 octobre 2013

.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. 168 November 2013 Gahramanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.) - 26291/06 Decision 15.10.2013 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Airport security-check lasting several hours: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant was stopped at Baku International airport during border control because his name appeared under the status “to be stopped” in the database of the State Border Service. He was taken to a separate room by the border-service officers and was ordered to wait there for further clarification of his situation. The applicant claimed that he spent some four hours in the room, whereas the Government claimed that it was only two hours. During that time the applicant was unable to leave or to contact anyone. After it turned out that his name had been flagged in the database owing to an administrative error (the failure to remove it following a presidential pardon for a criminal conviction) he was allowed to leave the airport. The cost of his missed flight ticket was reimbursed. Ultimately, the domestic courts dismissed his claims for compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty. Law – Article 5 § 1: Given the multitude of situations in modern society where the public may be called on to endure restrictions on freedom of movement or liberty in the interests of the common good, an air traveller must be seen as consenting to a series of security checks by choosing to travel by plane. Those measures might include identity checks, baggage searches or waiting for further inquiries to be made in order to establish whether he or she represents a security risk for the flight. Accordingly, where a passenger was stopped during airport border control in order to clarify his situation for no more than the time strictly necessary to accomplish the relevant formalities, no issue arose under Article   5 of the Convention. The overall duration of the applicant’s stay in the separate room could not have exceeded a few hours. When the border-service officers stopped him and asked him to wait in a separate room, they had reason to believe that further identity checks were necessary since his name was accompanied by a warning in their internal database. There was nothing to prove that the applicant’s stay in the room had exceeded the time strictly necessary for searching his baggage and fulfilling the relevant administrative formalities for the clarification of his situation. Once it had been established that the warning in the database was the result of an administrative error, the applicant had been free to leave the airport immediately. His detention did therefore not amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   5. Conclusion : inadmissible.   © 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