ECtHR- CONDEMNED THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS FOR THE DETENTION OF A MOROCCAN ASYLUM SEEKER - WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION AND THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID - Filenews 6/10
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a conviction against the Republic of Cyprus for long-term detention of a Moroccan asylum seeker on October 1, 2026 in the individual appeal K.A. v. Cyprus (application no. 5755/25). The applicant entered the territory of the Republic illegally from the occupied territories in 2019 and was subsequently arrested and detained by the authorities of the Republic for reasons of national security, for a total period of time from 10 January 2019 to 24 February 2020, in Menogia.
The applicant's complaint before the ECtHR was based on two parts: The first, for violation of Article 5§1 (right to personal liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), claiming that his detention was illegal in the absence of a deportation order or the initiation of any criminal proceedings against him, and that his detention was arbitrary due to its duration. The second, for violation of Article 5§4 of the ECHR, alleging that the review procedure regarding the lawfulness of his detention did not meet the requirements of procedural justice and equality of arms, since, according to him, he was not disclosed with essential information and that he was not provided with appropriate, alternative, compensatory guarantees against the restriction of his rights of access to documents.
Regarding the first part of his complaint, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 5§1 by the Authorities of the Republic, on the basis that there was not a sufficiently close connection between the detention and the purpose of preventing unauthorized entry into the Republic by the administration. According to the ECtHR, the national authorities were not consistent with the legal basis of detention: sometimes they presented national security as an independent reason for detention and sometimes they linked the detention to the pending (to date) request for asylum. Also, after the applicant's appeal to the Administrative Court of International Protection, there was no substantial progress in the examination of his case in relation to asylum, while the total duration of his detention (approximately 13.5 months) was considered excessive and not reasonably necessary for the purposes of Article 5§1(f). As the ECtHR finally emphasized, the rapid completion of the asylum procedure would serve both the interests of the applicant and those of the State, which invoked a risk to national security.
Regarding the second part of the applicant's complaint, the ECtHR ruled that there was no violation of Article 5§4 of the ECHR. Although the applicant claimed that he did not have access to critical confidential information, the ECtHR held that he had been informed of the legal basis and the main reasons for his detention, had access to a significant part of his administrative file, was aware of the substance of the suspicions against him and was represented by a lawyer, generally being able to effectively challenge the allegations that he posed a danger to national security. The fact that the Administrative Court had access to all confidential material and could check whether the non-disclosure of this material was justified was also considered crucial. Consequently, the ECtHR considered that despite the restrictions on access to the material due to national security, the review procedure followed provided sufficient compensatory guarantees.
The ECtHR awarded the applicant an amount of €5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and an amount of €3,750 in relation to costs.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a conviction against the Republic of Cyprus for long-term detention of a Moroccan asylum seeker on October 1, 2026 in the individual appeal K.A. v. Cyprus (application no. 5755/25). The applicant entered the territory of the Republic illegally from the occupied territories in 2019 and was subsequently arrested and detained by the authorities of the Republic for reasons of national security, for a total period of time from 10 January 2019 to 24 February 2020, in Menogia.
The applicant's complaint before the ECtHR was based on two parts: The first, for violation of Article 5§1 (right to personal liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), claiming that his detention was illegal in the absence of a deportation order or the initiation of any criminal proceedings against him, and that his detention was arbitrary due to its duration. The second, for violation of Article 5§4 of the ECHR, alleging that the review procedure regarding the lawfulness of his detention did not meet the requirements of procedural justice and equality of arms, since, according to him, he was not disclosed with essential information and that he was not provided with appropriate, alternative, compensatory guarantees against the restriction of his rights of access to documents.
Regarding the first part of his complaint, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 5§1 by the Authorities of the Republic, on the basis that there was not a sufficiently close connection between the detention and the purpose of preventing unauthorized entry into the Republic by the administration. According to the ECtHR, the national authorities were not consistent with the legal basis of detention: sometimes they presented national security as an independent reason for detention and sometimes they linked the detention to the pending (to date) request for asylum. Also, after the applicant's appeal to the Administrative Court of International Protection, there was no substantial progress in the examination of his case in relation to asylum, while the total duration of his detention (approximately 13.5 months) was considered excessive and not reasonably necessary for the purposes of Article 5§1(f). As the ECtHR finally emphasized, the rapid completion of the asylum procedure would serve both the interests of the applicant and those of the State, which invoked a risk to national security.
Regarding the second part of the applicant's complaint, the ECtHR ruled that there was no violation of Article 5§4 of the ECHR. Although the applicant claimed that he did not have access to critical confidential information, the ECtHR held that he had been informed of the legal basis and the main reasons for his detention, had access to a significant part of his administrative file, was aware of the substance of the suspicions against him and was represented by a lawyer, generally being able to effectively challenge the allegations that he posed a danger to national security. The fact that the Administrative Court had access to all confidential material and could check whether the non-disclosure of this material was justified was also considered crucial. Consequently, the ECtHR considered that despite the restrictions on access to the material due to national security, the review procedure followed provided sufficient compensatory guarantees.
The ECtHR awarded the applicant an amount of €5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and an amount of €3,750 in relation to costs.
