CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 juillet 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   419 11.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Saadi v. the United Kingdom (application no. 13229/03).   The Court held, by four   votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 2 (everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that finding a violation of Article 5 § 2 constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Shayan Baram Saadi, is a 29 year old Iraqi national who lives in London.   He fled Iraq and arrived at London Heathrow Airport on 30 December 2000 where he immediately claimed asylum and was granted “temporary admission”. On 2 January 2001, on reporting to the immigration authorities, he was detained and transferred to Oakington Reception Centre, a centre which was used for those who were not likely to abscond and who could be dealt with by a “fast track” procedure.   On 5 January 2001 the applicant’s representative telephoned the Chief Immigration Officer and was told that the reason for the detention was that the applicant was an Iraqi who met the criteria to be detained at Oakington.   The applicant’s asylum claim was initially refused on 8 January 2001 and he was formally refused leave to enter the UK. He was released the next day. He appealed against the Home Office decision and was subsequently granted asylum.   The applicant, together with three other Kurdish Iraqi detainees who had been held at Oakington, applied for permission for judicial review of their detention claiming that it was unlawful under domestic law and under Article 5 of the Convention. Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords held that the detention was lawful in domestic law. In connection with Article 5 they each held that the detention was for the purpose of deciding whether to authorise entry and that the detention did not have to be “necessary” to be compatible with that provision. They further maintained that the detention was “to prevent unauthorised entry” and that the measure was not disproportionate.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 April 2003 and declared admissible on 27 September 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained about his detention at Oakington and about the fact that he was given no reasons for it. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1(f) The Court firstly examined whether the applicant was detained in order to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the United Kingdom. It came to the conclusion that, although the applicant had applied for asylum and had been granted temporary admission to the country on 30 December 2000, and had been at large until 2 January 2001, his detention from that date was nevertheless to prevent his effecting an unlawful entry because, lacking formal admission clearance, he had not “lawfully” entered the country.   The Court also noted that the only requirement under Article 5 § 1(f) for the detention of an individual under such circumstances, was that that detention should be imposed as a genuine part of the process to determine whether the individual should be granted immigration clearance and/or asylum, and that it should not otherwise be arbitrary.   The Court accepted that the applicant’s detention at Oakington was a bona fide application of the policy on “fast-track” immigration decisions. As to the question of arbitrariness, the Court noted that the applicant was released once his asylum claim had been refused. The detention lasted a total of seven days, which the Court found not to be excessive in the circumstances. It followed that the applicant’s detention from 2 to 9 January 2001 was not incompatible with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. There had therefore been no violation of that provision.   Article 5 § 2 The Court noted that the applicant’s representative was informed of the reason for the applicant’s detention by telephone on 5 January 2001. At that time, the applicant had been in detention for some 76 hours. The Court found that such a delay was not compatible with the requirement of Article 5 § 2 that such reasons be given promptly.   It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of that article.   Article 14 The Court held that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaints separately under Article 14 as the substance of his complaint had been dealt with in its determination of the issues under Article 5 § 1(f).     Judge Bratza expressed a concurring opinion and Judges Casadevall, Traja and Sikuta expressed a joint dissenting opinion. These separate opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.