Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/ecthr-kahadawa-arachchige-and-others-v-cyprus-application-nos-1687011-1687411-and-1687911-19
Timestamp: 2020-04-10 09:55:09
Document Index: 777240596

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 54273', 'Application No. 54131', 'Application No. 10465', 'Application No. 31195', 'Application No. 36022', 'Application no. 16567', 'Application No. 55597', 'Application no. 51564', '§ 79', 'Application no 13255', 'application no. 6205', 'Application No. 60119', 'Application no. 26828', 'Application no. 15576']

ECtHR - Kahadawa Arachchige and Others v. Cyprus (Application nos. 16870/11, 16874/11 and 16879/11), 19 June 2018 | European Database of Asylum Law
Kahadawa Arachchige and Others v. Cyprus (Application nos. 16870/11, 16874/11 and 16879/11), 19 June 2018
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section)
This case concerned three Sri Lankan nationals who were deported from Cyprus in January 2011 after being detained for taking part in clashes with a group of other Sri Lankans. They denied taking part in the disturbance. They were held in detention for five to seven days before being deported.
The applicants complained that their detention with a view to their deportation had been unlawful and therefore in breach of Article 5(1) and that they did not have an effective remedy to challenge their detention, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the first applicant complained of a violation of the right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8, and the lack of an effective remedy under Article 13 in this respect.
Lastly, the first and second applicants alleged that they had been deported without being informed about the deportation decision and without any procedural safeguards, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.
First, the Court noted that Cypriot law allows for the possibility of detention with a view to deportation on the grounds of public order and unlawful stay, as was the case of the applicants. Based on the facts of this case, the ECtHR ruled that the applicants’ detention had a legal basis in domestic law and was ordered in accordance with that procedure. There was no indication of a lack of diligence from the part of the national authorities or concerns regarding the detention conditions. Therefore, the ECtHR found that there has been no violation of Article 5(1) ECHR.
Second, the Cypriot government accepted that, in the light of the ECtHR’s judgment in M.A. v. Cyprus, recourse proceedings under Article 146 of the Cypriot Constitution were ineffective for the purposes of Article 5(4) ECHR, as they did not comply with the requirement of “speediness”. Therefore, the Court found that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, in violation of Article 5(4) ECHR.
Finally, the ECtHR ruled the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 inadmissible ratione materiae, as they were no longer “lawfully resident” in Cyprus at the time of the decision.
The Court declared the complaints concerning Article 5 (1) and (4) admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
It found that there had been no violation of Article 5 (1 ) but that there was a violation of Article 5(4).
ECtHR - Sharma v. Latvia, no. 28026/05, 24 March 2016
ECtHR - Udeh v. Switzerland, no12020/09
ECtHR - Boultif v Switzerland, Application No. 54273/00
ECtHR - Bajsultanov v Austria, Application No. 54131/10
ECtHR - Olsson v. Sweden (no 1), Application No. 10465/83
ECtHR - Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9659/82 and 9658/82
ECtHR - Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], Application No. 31195/96
ECtHR - Hatton v UK [GC], Application No. 36022/97
ECtHR - Nacic and others v Sweden, Application no. 16567/10
ECtHR- Nunez v. Norway, Application No. 55597/09
ECtHR - Čonka v Belgium, Application no. 51564/99, 5 February 2002
ECtHR - Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 79, 31 March 2011
ECtHR - Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos 14594/07
ECtHR - Georgia v Russia, Application no 13255/07, 3 July 2014
ECtHR - Silver and Others v United Kingdom (application no. 6205/73), 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61
ECtHR - Sunday Times v the United Kingdom, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 38
ECtHR – Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, Application No. 60119/12, 8 March 2016
ECtHR - Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], Application no. 26828/06, 31 May 2007
ECtHR - Abbasi v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 21713/06, 5 July 2007
ECtHR - Mawaka v. the Netherlands, no. 29031/04, 1 June 2010
ECtHR - F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, 23 October 2012
ECtHR - El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010
ECtHR - Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, ECHR 2000-IV
ECtHR - Cruz Varas & Others v Sweden (Application no. 15576/89)
CASE OF KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS.pdf
Cyprus - Qureshi Aqeel Ahmed v. the Republic (2006) 3 C.L.R. 537
Cyrpus - Maria-Bella A. Mabello v. the Republic of Cyprus (2003) 4 C.L.R. 344
The Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7 (ETS No. 117) defines the scope of application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.
Cyprus - The Aliens and Immigration Law (Cap. 105): section 6(1)
section 6(3)
Cyprus - Aliens and Immigration Regulations of 1972: Regulations 9(4)
Cyprus - Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus: Article 146(1)