Abstract
According to the ECtHR Press Release:
The case concerned an asylum seeker who had been held in an immigration detention centre for more than 16 months.
The applicant, Sagal Abdi Mahamud, is a Somali national who was born in 1992 and at the time of the introduction of her application was detained in Lyster Barracks Detention Centre, in Ħal Far (Malta). Ms Abdi Mahamud arrived in Malta by boat in May 2012 and, intercepted by the immigration police, was immediately detained in Lyster Barracks under the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act. Having been presented with an order for her removal as a prohibited immigrant, she lodged an asylum claim. Her claim was ultimately rejected in December 2012 on the ground that, as a Somali national, there was a possibility of her returning safely to Mogadishu. In the meantime, in October 2012 Ms Abdi Mahamud, suffering from a number of medical problems – including headaches, earaches and fainting – which resulted in her frequent hospitalisation, was referred to the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers with a view to obtaining her release on the grounds of vulnerability due to physical and psychological ill-health. She was interviewed in December 2012 and then verbally informed in August 2013 – with confirmation from the Government – that she would be released. She was actually released in September 2013. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, Ms Abdi Mahamud complained about the conditions of her detention from May 2012 to September 2013, notably on account of overcrowding, limited access to outdoor exercise, lack of proper arrangements against the heat and cold as well as lack of female staff and little privacy. Furthermore, she made a number of complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) notably concerning the length of her detention, more than seven months of which pending a decision on her asylum request and the rest allegedly pending her removal, without any steps being taken to remove her or any effective judicial review being available with which she could have challenged the lawfulness of her detention. She also claimed that her detention had been governed by laws and policies, which had been vague as to the exceptions to detention for vulnerable persons such as herself.
Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)
Violation of Article 5 § 4
Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of the first period of detention
Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of the second period of detention
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses)
Country of Decision
Council of Europe
Court Name
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
Date of Decision
03/05/2016
Country of Origin
Somalia
Keywords
Detention/ Alternatives to Detention
Return/Removal/Deportation