The case concerned the detention of an Iraqi national pending his asylum proceedings. The applicant crossed the Hungarian border from Ukraine on 25 September 2015 and requested asylum in Hungary. He was granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds pending the outcome of the asylum application and he was detained by order of the asylum authority from 26 September 2025, with the justification that the applicant’s identity and nationality was not clarified and that there was a risk of absconding and hampering the asylum proceedings. On 23 December 2015, the applicant was granted subsidiary protection and his asylum detention was terminated.

The applicant complained under Article 5(1) of the European Convention that his asylum detention was unlawful.

The Hungarian Government argued that the applicant’s detention fell under Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention as he was detained pending the determination of his right to enter and stay in Hungary. The ECtHR did not accept that in the applicant’s case detention was meant to prevent unauthorised entry to the country, considering that the applicant was provided with a residence permit on humanitarian grounds in line with the national law and he had this permit throughout the asylum proceedings.

The court also noted that detention did not fall under Article 5(1)(b), for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law. It also recalled that detention could be ordered based on an individual assessment when conducting the asylum procedure or securing a transfer under the Dublin III Regulation could not be achieved through other measures to secure the person’s availability. In addition, the court noted that there was no indication of failure to cooperate on the part of the applicant and that the justification of placing him in detention to clarify his identity and prevent his absconding was not sufficiently individualised to justify the detention measure. Finally, the court noted that the fact that the applicant left Hungary after his release does not affect the court’s conclusion.

Thus, the court found a violation of Article5(1) of the European Convention.