Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) (Syria);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general}

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that following the events in PERSON in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; paragraph CARDINAL of ORG on GPE ) he had participated in demonstrations that took place at his university . He was arrested in DATE by the civil police and was detained for DATE . During this period he was ill - treated and his health was adversely affected by the physical violence he was subjected to . The applicant was arrested again in DATE for DATE and once again subjected to physical violence . Following his release , he was not able to find any employment as his police file remained open . He also submitted that he had not served compulsory military service .

The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE . He submitted that he secured a visa for GPE after bribing officials .

He applied for asylum in GPE on DATE .

ORG discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on DATE by virtue of section CARDINALA ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of LAW of DATE ( as amended up to DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL ; see paragraphs QUANTITY below and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) as the applicant had not complied with the obligation deriving from section CARDINAL of that PERSON , according to which , in the event of a change of address , the applicant had to inform ORG either directly or through the local Aliens and ORG , within DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . According to the note in his file the applicant had not attended the interview arranged for DATE . In the note it is stated that a letter had been sent to him on DATE by ORG requesting him to attend the interview . The applicant , however , had not received this letter as he had changed address in the meantime without notifying the authorities . Furthermore , it had not been possible to make telephone contact with him as he had given a wrong number .

The applicant did not lodge an appeal with ORG hereafter “ the Reviewing Authority ” ) .

The applicant submitted that he never received a letter asking him to attend an interview nor had he received notification of the decision of ORG to close his file so as to be able to appeal against it .

The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he had left GPE because he had been harassed and ill - treated by ORG due to his origin and his connections to ORG . He stated that he had left GPE illegally .

The applicant applied for asylum in GPE on DATE . In his application for asylum , the applicant claimed that he had left GPE for CARDINAL reasons . First of all , he had been beaten up by members of ORG as he had complained about having to repair their cars at his car repair garage without payment . Secondly , his business had suffered setbacks by rising oil prices . He stated that he had left GPE legally .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE . In his interview the applicant claimed that he had been arrested and beaten up by ORG on a number of occasions in connection with their demands to have their cars repaired for free and that the Head of ORG had threatened to imprison him for a very long period . He also claimed that after he had left GPE he had found out that ORG as well as the NORP authorities were looking for him on the pretext that he had participated in the PERSON events in DATE . He therefore faced imprisonment if he returned to GPE .

His application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( as amended up to DATE ) , and the DATE LAW relating to ORG ( hereafter “ the DATE LAW ” ) in that he had not shown that he had a well - founded fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well - founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . ORG noted that there had been significant discrepancies and inaccuracies in his account of the facts on which his allegations of persecution were based . It held that the applicant ’s allegations had been unfounded and had not been credible .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .

In the copies of the records of ORG it was noted on DATE that in accordance with instructions given by Minister of the ORG on DATE , if the applicant was traced , the possibility of granting him a special residence permit should be examined before deporting him . PERSON should take place only if the applicant was involved in illegal activities .

On DATE ORG decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .

The Reviewing Authority pointed to contradictions in the applicant ’s claims and held , having regard to all the information and evidence available , that they were unsubstantiated . It noted that the applicant had given CARDINAL different reasons for which the Head of ORG had allegedly threated him with imprisonment . Furthermore , although he initially claimed that the ORG forces and the authorities were falsely accusing him of participating in the PERSON events , he then stated that he had actually participated but was not able to give accurate information concerning these events . Furthermore , the events complained of had happened in DATE whereas he had left GPE legally in DATE and he did not allege that during this period he was persecuted by the authorities because of his alleged participation . He was also able to leave GPE legally . ORG further stressed that his claims concerning ill - treatment were incoherent and that the applicant had not been able to describe in any detail the treatment he had been allegedly subjected to . Lastly , in reply to the applicant ’s claims before it that he had been subjected to persecution because of his NORP origin , ORG observed that the applicant had not applied for asylum on this basis . In any event , it stressed that there was no indication that he had been subjected to any kind of discrimination on the ground of his origin .

ORG concluded by observing that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .

The applicant submitted that he did not receive the decision of ORG but had only heard that his asylum file had been closed . He was therefore not able to appeal .

The Government submitted that a letter was sent on CARDINAL DATE by double registered mail ( registered mail with proof of delivery ) to the address given by the applicant . The letter had been returned . They provided a copy of the receipt on which it was noted “ insufficient address . ”

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant submitted that he had converted to NORP . In DATE he was detained by the NORP police and was accused of organising a church congregation ( organising people for church ) . During his detention , which lasted DATE , he was tortured by police officers . He did not confess that he had changed religion but told them that he had been going to church to give music lessons . He was arrested again on DATE and detained for DATE during which he was subjected to torture . After he was released he was told that he would be contacted again . For this reason he started travelling around GPE but never staying in places where too many NORP lived .

The applicant left GPE on an unspecified date in DATE . Although he had left legally , he had bribed a police officer at the border to let him go through . The applicant entered GPE illegally after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum in GPE on DATE .

Following an interview on an unspecified date , his application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( as amended up to DATE ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG held that the applicant ’s claims and his alleged fear of persecution on return to GPE were not credible . It noted in this respect that the applicant had been able to obtain a passport lawfully and to leave GPE , that there had been discrepancies between his asylum application and his interview , concerning the grounds for which he had alleged left GPE , and that the applicant lacked basic knowledge of the NORP religion .

It appears that on DATE the applicant applied for a temporary residence permit .

On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .

ORG , referring to ORG decision , held that there had been discrepancies in the applicant ’s account of the facts and reasons for his departure from GPE which undermined his credibility . ORG noted , inter alia , that although the applicant had claimed that he had left GPE because he had been persecuted by ORG he had been able to obtain a passport lawfully and to leave the country . The applicant had also stated in his interview that he had not faced any difficulties going through passport control as he did not have any problems with the NORP authorities . Moreover , although the applicant alleged that he had been persecuted and harassed for participating in NORP festivities , when requested he did not give any details concerning the alleged persecution . To the extent that the applicant claimed that he had been detained twice following the PERSON events , ORG observed that the applicant had been released without conditions and had never been charged with any offence . Lastly , the applicant in his interview had claimed that he had converted to NORP while in GPE in DATE and that he had left GPE for this reason . He had not , however , mentioned this in his application form on which it was stated that he was a NORP . In any event , the applicant lacked basic knowledge of the NORP religion and had not been baptised .

ORG concluded that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .

On DATE the applicant was put on a stop - list but it was noted that he was not to be deported until further instructions were received from ORG .

The applicant did not lodge a recourse against ORG decision . He submitted that this was because of the costs of such proceedings and also due to the fact that he was subsequently given a temporary residence permit by the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , the Minister of ORG , following a meeting with ORG on DATE , decided to grant the applicant a temporary residence permit for DATE on the condition that he found a local employer who had authorisation to employ third country nationals . The applicant submitted that he was not able to find such an employer and that ORG was not willing to approve a contract with other employers .

Following the expiry of his permit the applicant remained irregularly in GPE .

The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG , his application of CARDINAL DATE for a residence permit ( see paragraph DATE above ) had been rejected and that he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .

In the copies of the records of ORG it was noted on DATE that in accordance with instructions given by the Minister of the ORG on DATE , if the applicant was traced , the possibility of granting him a special residence permit should be examined before deporting him . PERSON should take place only if the applicant was involved in illegal activities .

The applicant is an PERSON ( registered stateless ) NORP born in DATE in GPE .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he was a musician and as he was stateless he was unable to get a licence in GPE in order to practise his profession . Furthermore , a decree by the Governor of LOC in DATE reportedly prohibited the singing of non - Arabic songs at wedding or festivals ( Order No . CARDINAL/sad/CARDINAL ; ORG , GPE : The Silenced NORP , DATE , ORG , page CARDINAL ) . The applicant feared that he would be subjected to arbitrary detention and possibly torture because he was singing NORP songs .

For this reason he left GPE illegally on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE . In his interview the applicant alleged , firstly , that his human rights had been violated as he was an GPE ; in particular , his rights to education , work and property . Secondly , the applicant stated that he did not want his children to be GPE . Thirdly , he claimed that he would be imprisoned if he returned to GPE , as he had left the country illegally . He , however , stated that he had never been arrested and detained , harassed or persecuted by the NORP authorities .

His application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular , ORG held that the mere fact that the applicant was an GPE from the LOC area did not mean that the applicant was in danger of persecution . In particular , ORG held that the applicant could not claim to be in danger of persecution and entitled to refugee status simply by reason of being an GPE from the LOC area . Furthermore , it considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if he returned to GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .

It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that , on DATE , the applicant was put on the authorities’ “ stop list ” .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision and dismissed the appeal .

ORG stressed , inter alia , that NORP were not persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity when they were not involved in anti - regime activities . The applicant had neither alleged that he had been harassed by the NORP authorities nor that he had been persecuted by them . Furthermore , ORG observed that unless a person was an opponent of the regime , there was no real risk that leaving GPE illegally would result in persecution on their return . It also noted that according to its own research , PERSON were entitled to , among other things , work in the public and private sector , receive an education and register their property . Furthermore , the applicant had given a document which belonged to his father and on which his personal details and family situation were registered such as births , death and divorce . The applicant could thus register his children under his name . Lastly , the applicant ’s claim that he could not work as a musician did not constitute persecution or discrimination .

ORG concluded by observing that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .

The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to do so .

The applicant submitted an attestation from the “ ORG a NORP ” ( “ CDK ” ) in GPE dated DATE stating that he was a compatriot and participated in the movement of the NORP peoples for national and human rights and that he was also a member of the party in GPE . It stated that , as many other NORP and being a stateless NORP , the applicant was deprived of his rights and had no identity card . He was therefore not able to obtain a licence to work as a musician and that if he was returned to GPE he would be subjected to long term imprisonment , torture and ill treatment .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he was a member of ORG in GPE and that he was involved in the PERSON events . Following these events he was too scared to return to his village which had been closed for DATE . During that period many people from his village were arrested and tortured by the authorities . Some disappeared . He decided to leave GPE as he was a stateless NORP and given his political involvement in the Yekiti party and the PERSON events .

The applicant left GPE illegally on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE .

ORG , however , discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on DATE by virtue of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of LAW of DATE as the applicant had not informed ORG or the local Aliens and ORG of his change of address ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was noted in the file that ORG had received a letter dated DATE from ORG informing them that the applicant had not showed up at their offices within reasonable time and remained illegally in GPE . On DATE he was put on the authorities’ “ stop - list ” as a wanted person . Subsequently , by letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant was asked to attend an interview at ORG on DATE . The applicant did not show up and the authorities had not been able to locate him . The letter was returned by the postal service with a note that the applicant had moved . It had not been possible to make telephone contact as he had given a wrong number .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG which was dismissed on DATE . ORG observed that the appeal concerned the applicant ’s asylum claim and its substance and not the decision of ORG to close the file . As the substance of his claim had not been examined his appeal should have been directed against the decision to discontinue the examination of his application and not the merits of his case .

The applicant submitted that ORG had never called on him to attend an interview and that he had informed ORG about his change of address . He had only found out later from his lawyer that his file had been closed because he had not attended the interview . ( He submitted an affidavit to this effect dated DATE he made at ORG . )

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that on DATE , some police officials approached him while he was working in his field . A fight ensued when the officers wanted to take his fingerprints and he resisted . He beat up CARDINAL of the officers and managed to escape . He went into hiding as the NORP police were looking for him .

He then left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE .

DATE . ORG held an interview with him on DATE .

His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It observed in this respect that it transpired during the interview that the applicant had left GPE for financial reasons . Furthermore , to the extent that the applicant alleged that if returned to GPE he would be arrested , convicted and sentenced to long - term imprisonment because he had lodged an asylum application , this was unfounded . On the basis of the information before it , the NORP authorities did not persecute persons just because they had applied for asylum .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .

On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .

The Reviewing Authority observed that in his application form the applicant claimed that he had left GPE because of fear following the PERSON events . In his interview with ORG , however , he claimed that he had left GPE for financial reasons and that although he had taken part in the PERSON events and had been arrested , arrests had been a general phenomenon and this had not been the reason he had left GPE . In his appeal he stated that he had left for financial and political reasons . He had not however , substantiated that he would be subjected to prosecution on political grounds . The applicant was not involved in any political parties and did not carry out any anti - regime activities . Lastly , it found that the applicant ’s allegation that he ran the risk of being imprisoned if returned to GPE because the authorities knew he had sought asylum was also unfounded as , on the basis of the information before it , the NORP authorities did not persecute failed asylum seekers upon their return unless they were opponents of the regime .

The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated CARDINAL DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG and the expiry of his temporary residence permit , he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .

On DATE the applicant was put on the authorities’ “ stop list ” .

DATE . The applicant submitted that the NORP authorities were still looking for him .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant claims that on DATE , while he was serving in the NORP army , he was arrested and taken into detention by the NORP authorities along with other NORP because of ORG ( the Iranian New Year , PERSON or MONEY DATE or Equinox and DATE in the NORP calendar ) . He was tortured for DATE along with his co - detainees . They were put into a car tyre and were subjected to bastinado . They were accused of conspiring against the ORG . Military proceedings were brought against him but after completion of his military service the charges were dropped . During this time the military police collected information on him and his friends and he was entered on a database as a dangerous individual . He was arrested again on DATE because he attended the FAC celebrations and was a member of ORG . He was detained for DATE and was released after bribing LOC . He was then re - arrested on DATE at his house after attending a NORP party meeting . He was released after bribing the same official . He then decided to leave GPE and managed to obtain a NORP visa after bribing a NORP security official working at the NORP embassy .

The applicant left GPE in DATE and entered GPE illegally after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE . He claimed that he had left GPE because as a NORP he had been subjected to discrimination . NORP were persecuted and did not enjoy any rights . He had therefore left for fear of his life .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE . The applicant claimed , inter alia , that he was a follower / supporter of ORG , he had left GPE due to the injustice that NORP suffered , and in particular , although he had a passport he had no other rights and he could not buy a house or land or work . He claimed that he was known to the NORP authorities and he had been taken at the police station and beaten up on several occasions . He had been arrested and detained on a number of occasions . In particular , in DATE he had been arrested and detained for DATE for participating in the ORG festivities . He had been arrested on another occasion for problems he had in the army . In DATE he was detained for DATE and in DATE for DATE . The latter CARDINAL times he had been released after paying a sum of money . He also stated that he was not wanted by the authorities and no other member of his family had ever been arrested . He claimed that he feared arrest if returned to GPE .

Subsequently , ORG called the applicant for a second interview and asked him to provide any documents he had concerning his application . The second interview was held on DATE . In this the applicant claimed , inter alia , that certain members of his family worked and that although the job market was not good , he would be able to work if he managed to find something . The applicant stated that he had been arrested on DATE when he was in the army following a dispute with another soldier on DATE for participating in the ORG festivities , and on DATE and DATE when demonstrations took place even though he was not involved . He was not , however , wanted by the authorities nor did he have any problems by reason of the fact that he was a follower of ORG .

His application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It therefore held that his asylum application had not been substantiated . In particular , ORG pointed out that during his interview he had claimed that he had left GPE for CARDINAL reasons : because of his NORP origin he could not work and buy a house or land and secondly due to his arrests by the NORP authorities . With regard to the first claim , they noted that he had not substantiated that he had been subjected to any form of discrimination due to his origin . As regards the arrests the applicant ’s allegations remained unfounded as he had not given any specific answers to questions that had been put to him . Furthermore , during the interview ORG had spotted a number of significant untruths / falsehoods concerning his claim .

The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had not been subjected to persecution and had claimed that he was not wanted by the NORP authorities . In its decision it observed that the applicant ’s claims had not been credible and had been vague and unsubstantiated . Although he claimed that he could not buy a house or land , he then stated that his parents owned a house which they lived in . Further , although he initially claimed that he could not work due to the fact that he was NORP he then stated that his family worked and he also was able to . The information he gave concerning his arrest and reasons was equally general and vague . He was not in a position to give specific replies to questions given concerning these matters . ORG observed that the applicant had not been able to reply satisfactorily and with precision to certain questions and give information concerning his claims .

In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .

The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to do so and at that time no legal aid was granted in such cases .

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that he and his family are members of ORG in GPE which was banned by the authorities . In DATE the applicant was driving his motorbike in his village carrying GPE party papers . The civil police in GPE ordered him to stop but he fled as he was scared that they would find the papers . The police pursued him but he managed to escape . The next day the police went to his house . The same day he got a visa on his passport .

The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE .

ORG , however , discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on DATE by virtue of section CARDINALA ( CARDINAL ) ( c ) of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as the applicant had not come to the interview which had been fixed for DATE despite having received the letter requesting him to attend . It was noted in the file that the letter had been sent to him by double registered mail and there was indication he had received it . It was also noted that the applicant , on DATE , had confirmed on the telephone after receiving a call by ORG that he would come to the interview . Despite this he had not shown up . Lastly , there was no indication that the applicant had departed from the country .

The applicant did not lodge an appeal with ORG .

The applicant submitted that he never received a letter asking him to attend an interview and that he had not received notification of the decision of ORG to close his file . He was subsequently informed of the closure of his file but he did not appeal against the decision as he did not know the procedure to follow and the steps to take so he could appeal against it . He was also scared to approach the authorities .

In the copies of the records of ORG it was noted on DATE that in accordance with the instructions of the Minister of the ORG given on DATE , if the applicant was traced , the possibility of granting him a special residence permit should be examined before deporting him . PERSON should take place only if the applicant was involved in illegal activities .

The applicant submitted that the NORP police were still looking for him .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that on DATE he participated in a demonstration in his village concerning the PERSON uprising . He had a camera and was taking photographs of the event when the civil police arrested him . He was blindfolded , placed in a police vehicle and transferred to the central detention centre of the village . There he was continuously tortured and ill - treated for DATE . After his release , he was obliged to report to the police DATE . On DATE , DATE after his release , the applicant decided to leave GPE as he was no longer able to handle the feeling of insecurity . He applied to get a passport from the authorities but this was refused . He succeeded in getting one after bribing officials .

The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE .

His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that no form of discrimination or persecution transpired from the applicant ’s claims . There had been discrepancies between his application and the allegations made during his interview , which undermined his credibility . It held that the applicant ’s claims and his alleged fear of persecution on return to GPE were not credible .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .

On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .

ORG noted that there were serious discrepancies between what he stated in his asylum application form and during his interview . For example , in his application he stated that he had left GPE because he was NORP and he had problems with the NORP authorities . During the interview he had alleged that he had not left GPE for political reasons but because his family had reached an agreement with another family to marry against his wishes . The applicant had also claimed that he had to move about in the country in order to avoid being caught by the authorities but then stated that he did not face any serious problems . Further , he initially claimed during the interview that even though he had signed his application form he did not know the contents as this had been filled in by another person . He subsequently , stated , however , that the contents were of a political nature and that he had told the person filling in the form to write whatever he wanted . This undermined the applicant ’s credibility .

ORG concluded that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds . The letter of notification addressed to the applicant by ORG dated DATE stated that its decision was subject to adjudication before ORG within DATE from the date he was informed of the decision .

The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against ORG decision as he did not know he had the right to do so .

The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG as well as the expiry of his temporary residence permit , he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .

On DATE the applicant was put on the authorities’ “ stop- list ” .

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .

NORP In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that on DATE he lit a fire with some friends to celebrate ORG . When the police came he managed to flee but his friends were arrested . He later found out from his family that the police were looking for him . He left GPE on DATE through the border with GPE after the taxi driver bribed the officials .

The applicant entered GPE illegally in DATE or beginning of DATE after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE . He claimed that he had left GPE because he had participated in a demonstration concerning NORP rights and that for this reason he was sought after by the NORP authorities .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE . The applicant claimed , that following the demonstration the authorities had asked certain of the persons that had been arrested information about him . He had left GPE for this reason . He also claimed that if he returned to GPE he might not be allowed entry or he ran the risk of being arrested . Furthermore , he stated that he had never been detained , harassed or persecuted by the NORP authorities and that he or his family did not belong to any , inter alia , political , religious or military group / organisation .

His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It observed that the applicant ’s allegations were general and vague . In particular , it noted that the applicant had failed to give any information / details about the demonstration he had allegedly participated in despite being asked during the interview . It concluded that his allegations had been unfounded and had not been credible .

The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had admitted that he had not been subjected to any harassment or persecution . His allegations concerning his fears of arrest were vague and general . He was not in a position to specify when and which demonstration he had taken part despite being asked specific questions on this during the interview . Furthermore , he had been able to leave the country legally without any problems . There was no indication that the NORP authorities were searching for him .

In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .

The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he was advised by a lawyer that it would be a waste of time and effort as ORG dismissed all such cases .

NORP The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that when he was in the NORP army he was detained for DATE on the basis of his ethnic identity . During that period he was subjected to ill - treatment such as standing still under the sun for long periods . There were also other NORP detained with the applicant and they were all told that this was a preparation for what was going to happen to all the NORP in the future . The applicant was also involved in cultural ( folklore ) activities of ORG Participation in cultural groups such as dance , drama or folkloric groups that wear NORP traditional dress and participate in funerals or other social rites was considered by the authorities to be political and thus repressed . The NORP government and authorities tended to politicise ordinary people who participated in these activities and therefore they ran a risk of being criminalised and exposed to persecution by the authorities .

The applicant left GPE in DATE legally but only after bribing officials at the border with GPE .

The applicant entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE .

His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that the applicant , during the interview , had claimed that he had left GPE due to a long standing property dispute between his family and another family . Although ORG did not question the credibility of his allegations concerning the existence of this dispute as such it did not find the applicant ’s claims as to his involvement in this dispute credible and that his departure from GPE was justified on this ground . The statements made in his interview were contradictory and he had stated that his life was not in danger . Eventually , the applicant had admitted that he had left GPE for financial reasons and faced no danger if he returned .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .

On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .

ORG observed that the applicant ’s account of facts concerning the alleged family dispute were contradictory . Furthermore , in his asylum application form he had stated that he his life was not in danger and that he had left GPE lawfully and for financial reasons . It had also become clear during the interview that the applicant had not left GPE for the reasons he had initially claimed but for financial reasons ; he could not find work with an adequate salary . He was therefore using the asylum procedure to extend his stay in GPE . New claims put forward by the applicant in his appeal that he was wanted by the NORP authorities because he had taken part in the FAC celebrations and that had been detained for DATE had not been substantiated and had not been raised by the applicant in his asylum application form or his interview with ORG . Lastly , the applicant had admitted that his life would not be in danger if he returned nor would he be punished .

The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to pay a lawyer .

The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG , he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .

NORP In his application form to the Court the applicant claimed that on DATE he and his mother lit a small fire to celebrate ORG . They also had the GPE flag on their roof . The police raided their house during which they hit the applicant ’s mother . She fell and had a minor head injury . They arrested the applicant and put him in detention . There were no formal legal proceedings and the applicant was released after his family bribed the police . In DATE he was arrested once again but was released with the help of his family who bribed the officers . He managed to obtain a passport through bribery and left GPE on DATE .

The applicant entered GPE illegally on an unspecified date after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE .

His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that the applicant , during the interview , had claimed that he had left GPE because he had been persecuted by the NORP authorities for being a member of the ORG ( ORG , an illegal organisation ) . It held that the applicant ’s claims were not credible as he had not been able to reply satisfactorily to basic questions concerning the party . He was not therefore able to establish that his was a member of the party and therefore substantiate that this was the ground for which he was allegedly persecuted .

ORG in its decision observed that the applicant ’s claims had not been credible and had been unsubstantiated . It noted that although the applicant claimed that he had been persecuted for being a member of the ORG and participating in activities and had fled for this reason , he was not able to give any information about the party . For example , he did not know who was the leader of the ORG , he was not able to draw the flag or to explain what the initials meant . Furthermore , he had a passport and had left the country legally without any problems .

In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .

The applicant did not lodge a recourse against this decision .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the applicant , following the negative decision of ORG , to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .

On DATE the applicant was put on the authorities’ “ stop - list ” .

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE . He is married and has one child .

NORP In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he was a member of the banned ORG . On DATE he completed his military service and then went back to his village where he discovered that the NORP authorities had changed the name of his village into an NORP one . Along with CARDINAL other persons they rewrote the original name over the NORP one on the road signs . After this , the intelligence service detained CARDINAL of his friends . The applicant and the others fled to GPE . From the QUANTITY persons arrested , the one disappeared in the hands of the authorities and the second one was released after spending DATE in detention and after disclosing the identities of the ones who managed to escape . After getting help from members of ORG , the applicant managed to get a passport .

The applicant left GPE on DATE and came to GPE on DATE with a tourist visa after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum on DATE , DATE . In his form he claimed that he had left GPE because of the inhuman treatment NORP were subjected to and their difficult living conditions .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE . During this he stated that he had left GPE because the NORP had no rights and that a photograph had been taken of him during a demonstration of the GPE party . He stated that he feared arrest and imprisonment upon his retrun .

His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG found that the asylum application had not been substantiated . It noted that there had been discrepancies in his account of the facts which undermined his credibility in so far as he claimed that he had taken part in a demonstration during which his photo had been taken by the NORP authorities . Further , it considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .

On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .

ORG in its decision observed that the applicant in his application had claimed that he had left GPE because of the conditions of living and human rights violations of NORP . In his interview he also claimed that he had left as the authorities had taken a photo of him during a demonstration of ORG in DATE and if he returned he would be imprisoned as this is normally the case . The applicant was not able to give a more specific time frame for the demonstration ORG noted that the applicant had not had any problems with the authorities following that demonstration . At the same time he had claimed that he worked on and off in GPE for a period of DATE and occasionally returned to GPE without any problems . He alleged that only on CARDINAL occasion did the authorities force him and some friends to break up a meeting for ORG . The applicant ’s account of facts and claims were full of discrepancies and unsubstantiated , undermining his credibility .

The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he was advised by a lawyer that it would be a waste of time and effort as ORG dismissed all such cases .

It appears that the applicant ’s wife also applied for asylum . Her application was rejected on DATE and her appeal on DATE . She was then asked , in a letter dated DATE sent by ORG , to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .

On DATE she was put on the authorities’ “ stop - list ” .

The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE . He is married and has a child .

In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that on DATE during the events at the football match in PERSON , he got scared and left the town . He went to his home village , PERSON , where he stayed for DATE . When the situation improved he returned to PERSON . On DATE the civil police killed a prominent NORP religious leader . During the demonstration at the mosque the police officers took pictures of the demonstrators and DATE went to the applicant ’s house searching for him . On DATE the applicant left GPE . He travelled from PERSON to GPE and then obtained a visa after bribing someone to issue a visa for GPE .

The applicant entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .

He applied for asylum in DATE or DATE . He claimed that he had left GPE legally in order to find work .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE .

His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that the applicant , during the interview , had claimed that he had left GPE because he was wanted by the NORP authorities for participating in an illegal demonstration . His allegations , however , were unfounded and not credible , as during the interview his account of facts was full of discrepancies , contradictions and untruths . Furthermore , there were discrepancies between his written application form and the allegations made during the interview . In particular , the grounds he gave in his interview for leaving GPE where not the same as those he had given in his application . This undermined his overall credibility .

The applicant claims that he was not informed of the decision and in DATE he asked a non - governmental organisation to follow up his case . It was then that he discovered that his application had been dismissed .

NORP In the meantime it appears that his temporary residence permit granted to him on the ground that he was an asylum seeker expired .

NORP On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .

On DATE his appeal was dismissed under LAW F ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( as amended up to DATE ) on the ground that it had been filed out of time . ORG observed that the letter informing the applicant of the dismissal of his asylum application dated DATE was served through a private messenger and that the delivery slip was signed by his fellow lodger . It noted that on DATE a letter had been sent by a non - governmental organisation requesting information about the stage of proceedings of the applicant ’s application . A letter was sent dated CARDINAL DATE informing the NGO that the applicant ’s claim had been examined , the decision had been sent to the applicant by registered post and according to the file it had been received . The appeal deadline was DATE from the date the applicant was notified of the decision on the basis of section QUANTITY ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The appeal was filed on DATE , DATE following the date he had been notified of the decision .

The Government submitted that a letter was sent on DATE informing him of this decision by double registered mail to the address given by the applicant . The letter had been returned . They provided a copy of the receipt on which it was noted “ unclaimed ” .

The applicant did not lodge a recourse against ORG decision .

The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated CARDINAL DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG and other NORP from GPE organised a demonstration in GPE , near ORG , ORG and ORG . They were protesting against the restrictive policies of ORG in granting international protection . CARDINAL NORP from GPE , including the applicants , remained in the area around the clock , having set up CARDINAL tents on the pavement . According to the ORG , the encampment conditions were unsanitary and protesters were obstructing road and pedestrian traffic . The encampment had become a hazard to public health and created a public nuisance . The protesters performed their DATE chores on the pavement , including cooking and washing in unsanitary conditions . The sewage pits had overflown , causing a nuisance and offensive odours . The public lavatories were dirty and the rubbish bins of the Government buildings were being used and , as a result , were continuously overflowing . Furthermore , the protesters were unlawfully obtaining electricity from ORG . Members of the public who lived or worked in the area had complained to the authorities . The Government submitted that efforts had been made by the authorities to persuade the protesters to leave , but to no avail . As a result , the authorities had decided to take action to remove the protesters from the area .

On DATE instructions were given by the Minister of the Interior to proceed with the deportation of NORP - NORP failed asylum seekers in the normal way . According to the Government these instructions superseded the ones given by the Minister of the ORG on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .

On DATE the Minister requested the Chief of Police , among others , to take action in order to implement his instructions . Further , he endorsed suggestions made by the competent authorities that deportation and detention orders be issued against NORP - NORP failed asylum seekers who had passports and did not have PERSON or PERSON status and that the police execute the orders starting with the ones issued against the leaders of the protesters . The police were also directed to take into account the policy guidelines and to use discreet methods of arrest .

According to the Government , letters were sent by ORG to a number of failed NORP - NORP asylum - seekers informing them that they had to make arrangements to leave GPE in view of their asylum applications being turned down ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) . The letter sent to GPE . was dated DATE , in CARDINAL cases , including those of GPE , ORG , CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG and LOC the letters were dated DATE , in respect of AM , the letter was dated DATE and in respect of GPE , the letter was dated DATE . Another letter was dated DATE ( the asylum procedures having been completed in DATE ) and CARDINAL letter was dated DATE in a case where the asylum procedure had been completed on DATE and the person in question had voluntarily agreed and did return to GPE on DATE . Letters had been sent out to the remaining applicants much earlier ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

From documents submitted by the Government it appears that from CARDINAL May until DATE the authorities kept the area under surveillance and kept a record of the NORP DATE activities and of all comings and goings . In the relevant records it is noted that invariably , between TIME a.m. and TIME , things were , in general , quiet , and everyone was sleeping apart from those keeping guard . During the above - mentioned period a large - scale operation was organised by ORG , “ ERU ” ( “ FAC ) , and a number of other authorities , including the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit , for the removal of the protesters and their transfer to the ORG headquarters for the purpose of ascertaining their status on a case - by - case basis .

In the meantime , CARDINAL DATE and DATE orders for the detention and deportation of CARDINAL failed asylum seekers were issued following background checks . These included applicants PERSON , PERSON and ORG in respect of whom the orders were issued on DATE pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON on the ground that they were “ prohibited immigrants ” within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of that PERSON . Letters were sent by ORG of ORG to the Director of ORG and ORG , containing a short paragraph with information as to the immigration status of each person . This information included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by ORG , the date of dismissal of the appeal by ORG , where lodged , and the date some of those concerned had been included on the authorities’ “ stop list ” ( a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from GPE is banned or subject to monitoring ) . The letters recommended the issuance of deportation and detention orders . The Government submitted copies of CARDINAL such letters with information concerning CARDINAL people .

NORP The letter that included information on PERSON and CARDINAL of the persons detained stated that they all appeared to lead the political group , ORG , which was active in GPE and that they organised demonstrations complaining about their rights in GPE . It was considered that if the opportunity was given to them to organise themselves they could constitute a future threat to the security of GPE .

On DATE , letters were also prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing those concerned of the decision to detain and deport them . These included applicants ORG .. , PERSON and PERSON The Government submitted that , at the time , the authorities did not know whether the individuals concerned by the decisions were among the protesters .

The removal operation was carried out on DATE , TIME with the participation of CARDINAL officers from ORG , the ERU , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . The protesters , including the applicants , were led to buses , apparently without any reaction or resistance on their part . At TIME the mini buses carrying the male protesters left . The women , children and babies followed at CARDINAL a.m. A total of CARDINAL people were located at the place of protest and were transferred to the ORG headquarters : CARDINAL men , CARDINAL women and QUANTITY children . Upon arrival , registration took place and the status of each person was examined using computers which had been specially installed DATE . The Government submitted that during this period the protesters had not been handcuffed or put in cells but had been assembled in rooms and given food and drink . It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that by TIME the identification of CARDINAL of the group had been completed and that the whole operation had ended by CARDINAL p.m. The applicants do not contest the ORG ’s account .

It was ascertained that CARDINAL of the adults , along with their CARDINAL children , were in the Republic unlawfully . Their asylum applications had either been dismissed or their files closed for failure to attend interviews . Those who had appealed to ORG had had their appeals dismissed . Some final decisions dated back to DATE . A number of people had also been included on the authorities’ “ stop list ” . PERSON orders had already been issued for CARDINAL of them ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The authorities deported CARDINAL people on DATE at TIME ( CARDINAL adults and QUANTITY children ) . CARDINAL people ( QUANTITY men and QUANTITY women ) , including the applicants , were arrested . Applicants A.T. , GPE .. and H.H were detained under the deportation and detention orders that had been issued on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The remaining applicants were charged with the criminal offence of unlawful stay in the LOC under section LOC ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON ( see PERSON , cited above , § DATE ) . The applicants , along with the other detainees , were transferred to various detention centres in GPE . GPE , GPE , GPE , and PERSON were placed in FAC ; TIME in FAC facility ; PERSON and GPE . in the GPE Police station Detention facility ; GPE . , ORG , PERSON . , PERSON and GPE in the immigration detention facilities in LOC ( Block CARDINAL ) ; PERSON in FAC facility and PERSON in ORG . All those detained who were found to be legally resident in the Republic returned to their homes . Further , on humanitarian grounds , CARDINAL women whose husbands were detained pending deportation and who had a total of CARDINAL children between them were not arrested themselves . This included M.Y ’s wife ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .

According to the Government , the applicants and their co - detainees were informed orally that they had been arrested and detained on the basis that they had been staying in the ORG unlawfully and were thus “ prohibited immigrants ” ( see PERSON , cited above , § DATE ) . They were also informed of their rights pursuant to ORG Detained Law DATE ( Law no . DATE ) ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) and , in particular , of their right to contact by phone , in person and in private , a lawyer of their own choice . The applicants submitted that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention on that date .

On DATE letters were sent by ORG of ORG to the Director of ORG and ORG , recommending the issuance of deportation and detention orders . The letters contained a short paragraph in respect of each person with information as to his or her immigration status . This included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by ORG and the date of dismissal of the appeal by ORG where lodged . Some letters also referred to the date the asylum application had been lodged and the date some of the individuals concerned had been included on the authorities’ “ stop list ” . The Government submitted copies of letters concerning CARDINAL people ( most of these letters referred to groups of people ) .

Deportation and detention orders were also issued in NORP on DATE in respect of the remaining CARDINAL people detained ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , including the remaining CARDINAL applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON on the ground that they were “ prohibited immigrants ” within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(k ) of that PERSON . These were couched in identical terms . The order issued in respect of PERSON . also referred to CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . In respect of CARDINAL more person the order mentioned sections CARDINAL ) ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Subsequently , on DATE , letters were prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing all the detainees individually , including the remaining applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , of the decision to detain and deport them . The Government submitted CARDINAL copies of these letters , including those addressed to the applicants , the text of which was virtually identical , a standard template having been used .

The text of the letter reads as follows :

“ You are hereby informed that you are an illegal immigrant by virtue of paragraph ( k ) . section CARDINAL , LAW law , LAW , as amended until DATE , because you of illegal entry [ sic ]

Consequently your temporary residence permit / migration permit has been revoked and I have proceeded with the issue of deportation orders and detention orders dated DATE against you .

You have the right to be represented before me , or before any other ORG and express possible objections against your deportation and seek the services of an interpreter . ”

The only differences was that some letters referred to illegal stay rather than illegal entry and that the letters issued earlier referred to DATE as the date of issuance of the deportation and detention orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On the copy of the letters to the applicants provided by the ORG , there is a handwritten signed note by a police officer stating that the letters were served on the applicants on DATE but that they refused to receive and sign for them . The other letters had a similar note or stamp on them with the same date , stating that the person concerned had refused to sign for and/or receive the letter . In a letter dated DATE the Government stated that the applicants had been served on DATE . In their subsequent observations the Government submitted , however , that this was the second attempt to serve the letters , the first attempt having been made on DATE , that is , the day of the arrest .

The applicants submitted that they had never refused to receive any kind of information in writing . They claimed that it had only been on DATE that they had been informed orally that they would be deported to GPE on DATE but that the deportation and detention orders were not served on them on that date or subsequently . They submitted that they had eventually been informed by their lawyer , following the receipt of information submitted by the Government to the ORG in the context of the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that deportation and detention orders had been issued against them .

From the documents submitted by the Government , it appears that at least another CARDINAL of the detainees were to be deported on DATE ( this figure is stated in documents submitted by the Government with no further details ) .

On DATE , DATE , the applicants , along with CARDINAL other persons of NORP origin , submitted a Rule CARDINAL request in order to prevent their imminent deportation to GPE .

On DATE the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule CARDINAL , indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to GPE until ORG had had the opportunity to receive and examine all the documents pertaining to their claim . The parties were requested under LAW ( a ) of ORG to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation .

On DATE the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule CARDINAL in the light of information provided by the parties . He decided to lift Rule CARDINAL in CARDINAL applications , including the present ones . He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of CARDINAL applications ( for further details see PERSON , cited above , § MONEY ) . Rule CARDINAL was subsequently lifted with regard to CARDINAL of the applications .

Following this decision the applicants who were not covered by Rule CARDINAL were deported to GPE on various dates ( see section D below ) .

NORP The applicant was deported on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from ORG in GPE ( “ DAD ” ) that the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was living in the NORP area of LOC .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was still in GPE .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

NORP By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant upon his arrival in GPE had been requested by the authorities to present himself to the civil police on CARDINAL different occasions . He had then been arrested in DATE and detained in GPE on unknown grounds .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that on DATE the applicant had been sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Following his release from prison he left GPE and went to GPE .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

NORP By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that upon his return to GPE the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that on DATE the applicant had been sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Following his release from prison he left GPE and went to LOC .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that upon his return to GPE the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE for DATE .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant , following his release from prison , had left GPE and gone to LOC .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant had been arrested upon his arrival at GPE airport .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been detained in GPE for DATE during which he had been interrogated and had revealed that he had sought asylum in GPE . He was then taken by the police to LOC where he was detained by the civil police for DATE . He was detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY and he was subjected to torture and ill - treatment . In particular , he was beaten on various parts of his body with wooden sticks . During his detention he was interrogated in relation to his affiliation to political parties . Subsequently he was transferred to FAC where he was detained for DATE and DATE . After that he was brought before a court in GPE without having been informed of the charges brought against him . He was questioned as to his affiliation to political parties . He was then taken back to LOC . He was subsequently transferred to ORG in his hometown where he was detained for TIME and DATE he was taken to court again . He was released after his family bribed officials and he immediately went into hiding . He hid in friends’ and relatives houses and subsequently in a bakery in GPE , until he could find a way to leave from GPE again . While in GPE , his cousin informed him that he had received a letter requesting the applicant to present himself at FAC . He was told by members of his family that he was still wanted from the military and civil police . After a failed attempt to leave GPE he managed to leave through LOC . He returned to GPE after travelling from GPE and was in the process of submitting a new asylum application . The applicant stated that he was still wanted by the military police in GPE and that his family was still trying to find out the reason why he was a wanted person .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been arrested and detained upon his arrival in GPE and that on DATE he had been sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Following his release , the applicant left GPE and went to GPE .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant upon his arrival in GPE had his passport retained by the authorities and had been asked to show up for checks at the civil police on different occasions . His passport was eventually returned to him .

NORP By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had agreed to return voluntarily to GPE on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been arrested DATE after he returned to GPE and was still detained in GPE prison . He had been accused of acting against ORG while he was in GPE and had been sentenced to imprisonment for DATE and DATE . She stated in the letter that it was expected that he would be released soon .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from the DAD that when the applicant , upon his arrival in GPE , had his passport retained by the authorities and was asked to present himself to the political police on different occasions . After bribing the authorities MONEY ( ORG ) he was given back his passport . They authorities put a written warning in his passport that he was forbidden to travel to GPE .

The applicant was deported on DATE .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had to serve compulsory military service once he returned to GPE . He fled , however , to LOC , before completing it .

The applicant returned to GPE voluntarily on DATE . No information has been given as to whether the applicant ’s wife and child were eventually deported with him as planned by the authorities .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that according to information she had received from members of the NORP community in GPE the applicant was living in GPE in GPE .

NORP The applicant was deported on DATE . No information has been given as to whether the applicant ’s wife and child were also deported .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant upon his arrival in GPE had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been detained for DATE , during which he had been ill - treated . After his release he remained in GPE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE , at TIME , the police arrested the applicant . In TIME he was interviewed and later taken to the hospital because he broke the window and injured himself . At TIME the arrest record was drawn up ; it gave TIME as the time of the applicant ’s arrest .

On DATE the Lukoyanovskiy ORG in LOC remanded the applicant in custody for an initial twomonth period .

On DATE ORG held a hearing to decide , among other matters , on an extension of the applicant ’s detention . The applicant asked for release ; counsel for the applicant pointed out that , since the authorised detention period had ended on DATE , his detention in the following DATE had been unlawful . ORG extended the applicant ’s detention , finding that the “ preventive measure [ should ] remain unchanged ” .

In the statement of appeal against ORG extension order , the applicant complained that the custodial measure which had already expired could not “ remain unchanged ” . The appeal was forwarded to ORG only on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal in a summary fashion , without addressing the applicant ’s arguments .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , without informing the applicant or his representative about the hearing or giving any reasons for its decision . The applicant filed an appeal on DATE which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

By judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , the applicant was found guilty and given a custodial sentence .


IP-OMEKOM INVALIDSKO PODJETJE D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , ORG invalidsko podjetje d.o.o . , is a limited company , whose registered office is in PERSON ( “ the applicant company ” ) . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Phillips of Worth Matravers

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

In DATE a solicitor in GPE was arrested and charged with a number of offences , including inciting paramilitaries to murder and perverting the course of justice . The case arose out of the covert recording of his consultations with clients at GPE police station . As a direct consequence of the criminal proceedings , solicitors in GPE became aware that their private consultations with detainees in police stations and prisons could be the subject of covert surveillance . Thereafter , solicitors attending detainees in police stations and prisons began to seek assurances from the police that their consultations would not be the subject of such surveillance .

When the police refused to give assurances , judicial review proceedings were initiated on the basis that there had been a breach of the common law right to legal and professional privilege , the statutory right to a private consultation with a lawyer , and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

In the case of ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINALA the Divisional Court of ORG in GPE found that , despite the express statutory right to private consultations , the covert surveillance of lawyer - client consultations was permitted by ORG ( “ RIPA ” ) . However , ORG provided for CARDINAL principal surveillance schemes : intrusive surveillance and directed surveillance . At the time of the hearing , covert surveillance of legal consultations was being treated as directed surveillance , which was the least restrictive of the CARDINAL schemes . ORG held that the fundamental right of a detained person to consult a legal adviser privately necessitated an enhanced authorisation scheme and that protections afforded by the directed as opposed to the intrusive surveillance scheme offered insufficient protection . If the surveillance of consultations between legal advisers and clients in police custody was to be lawful for the purposes of LAW , the safeguards for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance had to apply .

The applicants in these judicial review proceedings appealed against the court ’s ruling that the surveillance was permitted by the domestic legislation . The appeal went to ORG , where it was referred to as Re McE ( GPE ) [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL . ORG agreed with ORG that although the provisions of ORG could override , inter alia , legal professional privilege , the higher level of authority necessary for an intrusive surveillance warrant was required rather than the directed surveillance warrants that had , until then , been issued .

As ORG ( “ PSNI ” ) had not appealed against ORG ruling that the use of the directed surveillance scheme had breached LAW , ORG criticised the Secretary of ORG for not having taken any steps to ensure that covert surveillance of legal consultations was not treated as directed surveillance .

Following the decision of ORG in Re McE the Regulation of Investigatory Powers ( Extension of Authorisation Provisions : Legal Consultations ) Order DATE ( “ the DATE Order ” ) was adopted and on DATE a revised LAW ( “ the Revised Code ” ) came into effect . Pursuant to the DATE Order , directed surveillance of consultations between a detainee and his or her professional legal adviser , representative or medical practitioner in connection with legal proceedings was to be treated , for the purposes of RIPA , as intrusive surveillance .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in connection with the murder of a Police Constable believed to have been killed by dissident NORP .

When first arrested the applicant was assessed by ORG as a “ vulnerable person ” within the meaning of LAW . Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of that Code of Practice , he could not be interviewed , save in exceptional circumstances , in the absence of an “ appropriate adult ” . In the case of a person who was mentally vulnerable , an appropriate adult could be a relative or guardian , or a person experienced in dealing with mentally disordered or mentally vulnerable people . However , prior to being seen by either a solicitor or an appropriate adult , the applicant asked to speak to the officers in charge of the investigation “ off the record ” . He was interviewed by police officers in the absence of a solicitor or an appropriate adult and during the course of that interview he gave information which led to the recovery of the gun used in the Constable ’s murder .

The applicant was detained in custody for DATE . During this time he was twice seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist and on each occasion he was assessed as being vulnerable and requiring the presence of an appropriate adult . Also during this time his solicitor obtained an assurance from the ORG that his consultations with the applicant would not be subject to covert surveillance .

On DATE the applicant was charged with withholding information about the ORG ’s murder .

Following the charge the applicant was detained in custody on the ground that if released he would be at risk of harm from dissident NORP .

The applicant was released on bail on DATE . He was arrested and questioned on a further occasion in DATE but was subsequently released without charge .

On DATE the applicant was arrested for a third time in connection with the Constable ’s murder . Following his arrest his solicitor again sought an assurance from the ORG that his consultations would not be subjected to covert surveillance . The ORG informed him that

“ [ they could ] neither confirm nor deny whether any form of covert surveillance has been conducted in any instance . Covert surveillance is regulated by ORG , related statutory instruments and the Revised [ Covert Surveillance ] Code of Practice ” .

The applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the ORG ’s refusal to give an undertaking that his consultations with his solicitor would not be subjected to covert surveillance . In particular , he alleged that the grounds upon which the authorisation of such surveillance would be appropriate were not sufficiently clearly defined and that the guidance concerning the securing and destruction of legally privileged confidential information was not sufficiently clear or precise .

On DATE he was granted permission to apply for judicial review . In granting permission , the court directed that any subsequent consultations with his solicitor and his medical adviser should not be subject to covert surveillance .

On DATE the applicant had his first consultation with a Consultant Psychiatrist .

The applicant was released without charge on CARDINAL DATE .

The charge of withholding evidence appears to have concluded without trial .

The hearing of the judicial review application took place before a ORG of ORG in GPE on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim .

In dismissing the claim , the court relied on PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , which found that the regime under Part I of RIPA was compatible with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . Although it noted that PERSON was concerned only with Part I of RIPA , the court considered that the reasoning expressed was “ very relevant in view of the parallels between Part I and Part II of the surveillance legal regimes ” .

The court found , in particular , that reading ORG , the DATE Order and LAW together it was clear that a surveillance operation could only properly be justified if it was a truly proportionate response to a real risk posed by the individual who was the subject of the surveillance , and if the potential usefulness of the surveillance was demonstrably shown . As ORG had indicated in PERSON , the requirement of foreseeability did not require an exhaustive definition of all conduct that might justify a decision on , for example , national security grounds , and similar reasoning applied in the present case . Consequently , the court held that the wording in LAW was sufficiently clear .

With regard to the applicant ’s second allegation , the court accepted that the statutory provisions under Part I of RIPA , which had been considered by ORG in PERSON , were more detailed , prescriptive and precise than those in Part II . However , taking together the DATE Order , LAW and ORG , the arrangements in place for the use , retention and destruction of retained material in the context of legal consultations was compliant with the LAW persons in custody . Moreover , as LAW made it clear that material subject to legal professional privilege was not admissible in court and should be safeguarded by the taking of steps to ensure that it did not prejudice any criminal or civil proceedings , a breach of LAW would not occur . While there was a risk of a potential “ chill factor ” ( insofar as clients might be less than frank with their solicitors if they were concerned that they were under covert surveillance ) , the court considered that the revised LAW was sufficiently detailed and precise to reassure those in custody that , save in exceptional circumstances , their consultations with lawyers would be in private .

Finally , the court observed that the special considerations which applied to consultations with lawyers or doctors did not apply in the case of meetings with an appropriate adult . It therefore followed that surveillance of such meetings could be authorised as directed surveillance rather than intrusive surveillance .

On DATE the ORG heard an application for leave to appeal to ORG . Leave to appeal was refused although the court certified CARDINAL questions of law of general public importance . These were as follows :

“ a. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and ( i ) his / her solicitor ( ii ) his / her medical practitioner and/or ( iii ) an appropriate adult violate LAW in as much as they permit the covert surveillance of legally privileged consultations and the retention of material deriving from legally privileged consultations ?

b. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and ( i ) his / her solicitor ( ii ) his / her medical practitioner and/or ( iii ) an appropriate adult violate LAW as a result of:-

( i ) a lack of precision and clarity in the guidance governing the authorisation of such surveillance ; and/or

( ii ) inadequate guidance as to how and when legally privileged material obtained from such surveillance should be handled , stored , used and destroyed .

c. Is ORG Service Procedure “ in accordance with the law ” within the meaning of LAW ?

d. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and an appropriate adult violate LAW because such surveillance can be authorised as directed rather than intrusive surveillance ? ”

An application for permission to appeal to ORG was refused by ORG on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan)

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . He arrived in GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia with participation in the extremist religious movement PERSON and activities threatening the constitutional order . On DATE the authorities ordered his pre - trial detention and issued an international search and arrest warrant bearing his name .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . On DATE the Cheremushkinskiy ORG of GPE ordered and subsequently prolonged his detention .

On DATE the applicant was further charged with organising a local branch of ORG in CARDINAL of the regions of GPE .

On DATE the NORP prosecution authorities requested the applicant ’s extradition on the above charges . The request included assurances regarding the proper treatment of the applicant , which were formulated in standard terms .

On DATE the applicant ’s extradition in respect of certain charges was authorised by ORG .

The applicant challenged this decision in the courts , arguing that he belonged to a vulnerable group and therefore faced a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW at the hands of the NORP authorities .

On DATE his appeals were dismissed by a final decision of ORG of GPE . Without reference to any relevant evidentiary material , ORG considered that the applicant ’s claims were hypothetical and lacked specific indications regarding the level of risk , and observed that the situation in a requesting state might change over time . It also found that the assurances of the NORP authorities were satisfactory .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for refugee status , referring to persecution in GPE on religious grounds .

On DATE his request was refused by a final administrative decision of the migration authorities . The applicant challenged this decision in the courts , referring inter alia to the risk of illtreatment .

On DATE his appeals were dismissed by a decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s expulsion for violating the migration rules . The applicant ’s appeal , which referred to the risk of ill - treatment , amongst other factors , was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for temporary asylum . No information concerning the outcome of these proceedings was supplied by the parties .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim with the former ORG in GPE for payment of certain benefits .

On DATE ORG which took over the jurisdiction of ORG in GPE rejected the applicant ’s claim . The applicant received the said judgment on DATE .