On 28 January 2019 the applicant, a Syrian national, and two of his relatives entered the occupied areas of Cyprus. On 8 February 2019, they expressed their intention to seek international protection at the Ledras Palace crossing point in Nicosia. They were transferred to the Aliens and Immigration Service ("AIS") of the Cyprus Police, where their photographs and fingerprints were collected, and they completed forms for migrants who entered the country irregularly. Based on these forms, suspicions arose regarding their involvement in irregular immigration. Consequently, they were transferred to the Pournara Emergency Reception Centre, where they officially lodged their applications for international protection. Following an interview by the AIS Immigration Office, authorities concluded the applicant fit the profile of a foreign fighter. Subsequently, the Director of the Civil Registry and Migration Department (CRMD) issued a detention order under national security grounds, pursuant to section 9ΣΤ(2)(e) of Law no. 6(I)/2020 ("the Refugee Law"). The applicant was arrested and detained at the Lakatamia Police Station. On 22 February 2019, he was moved to the Menoyia Detention Centre for Prohibited Immigrants, where he remained until his release on 30 November 2021. The applicant appealed the detention order to the Administrative Court and later to the Supreme Court, both of which upheld the detention. He twice sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court, which were also dismissed. On 30 November 2021, the CRMD revoked the detention order, releasing the applicant on the condition that he regularly report to the police and provide his permanent address as required by section 9ΣΤ(3)(α) of the Refugee Law. The applicant complained before the ECtHR that his detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the ECHR.

In its assessment, the ECtHR cited its judgment in Saadi v United Kingdom (Application no. 13229/03, 29 January 2008) reiterating that any entry into a country is considered "unauthorized" until the State grants authorization and hence, detention to prevent unauthorized entry is justified under this principle. It then also cited Suso Musa v. Malta (Application no. 42337/12, 23 July 2013), reaffirming that if a State explicitly authorizes the entry or stay of asylum-seekers beyond its obligations, detaining individuals to prevent unauthorized entry may raise concerns under Article 5 § 1 (f). The Court stressed that the cessation of detention under Article 5 § 1 (f), upon receiving formal authorization, hinges largely on national law. It emphasized that compliance with national law alone is insufficient; detention must also protect individuals from arbitrariness, be conducted in good faith, and be proportionate in duration and conditions given the humanitarian context.

Regarding the present case, the Court observed that the applicant entered the Republic of Cyprus irregularly. However, after expressing his intention to seek asylum and being transferred to the AIS and then to Pournara, he received documentation allowing him to remain in the Government-controlled areas while awaiting a decision on his asylum claim. The Court found that although the applicant's detention may have been lawful under domestic law, it was not sufficiently linked to preventing unauthorized entry, thus violating Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Specifically, his detention was authorized under section 9ΣΤ(2)(ε) of the Refugee Law, solely on grounds of national security. The Court could not establish a direct connection between his detention for national security reasons and the examination of his asylum claim or his right to stay in the country. Therefore, detaining the applicant solely on grounds of national security was not sufficiently connected to the objective of preventing unauthorized entry. The Court emphasized that even if such a connection existed, the detention, lasting over two years and nine months, was deemed arbitrary due to its duration. It highlighted that the absence of a time-limit for detaining asylum-seekers under the Refugee Law does not justify nearly three years of detention. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant's detention was arbitrary, constituting a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the ECHR.

Citing Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), the applicant also argued that he lacked an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He specifically complained that his right to a prompt decision was violated and that he was denied a review of his detention's legality that respected principles such as equality of arms. The court noted that the appeal proceedings alone lasted over two years, and despite difficulties related to the Covid-19 pandemic, they were not conducted promptly by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the appeal proceedings.