A national of Sri Lanka requested international protection on 14 February 2018, and the Asylum Service rejected his application on 10 January 2020. The applicant then filed an appeal on 15 May 2020 before the International Protection Administrative Court (IPAC), which was rejected on 21 October 2020. He submitted a first subsequent application, which was rejected on 19 January 2023. He filed another appeal before the IPAC, which was also dismissed on 7 March 2023. On 5 January 2024, when the applicant attempted to cross from the occupied to the free areas at the Ledra Street checkpoint in Nicosia, the Aliens and Immigration Service discovered his irregular stay in Cyprus, which resulted in his immediate detention on the same day. During an oral interview, the applicant declared that he did not wish to return to his home country. On 6 January 2024, detention and deportation orders were issued against the applicant under Article 14, chapter 105, of the Aliens and Immigration Law. Authorities assessed that alternative measures to detention were not feasible, due to his non-compliance with return orders and long-term unlawful stay in Cyprus since October 2020. On 15 January 2024, while in detention, the applicant submitted a second subsequent asylum application, which was deemed admissible on 16 January 2024. Through a letter from his lawyer dated 30 January 2024, the applicant sought the annulment of the aforementioned detention orders, requesting his release to visit the Asylum Service and advance his application. On 4 April 2024, the lawyer delivered the applicant's original passport, identity card, and driver's license to the Asylum Service. On 22 February 2024, the competent authority re-served the applicant with the detention and deportation order dated 6 January 2024, with a handwritten note indicating "Suspension due to reopening on 15 January 2024."On the same day, 22 February 2024, a new detention order was issued by the Civil Registry and Migration Department, under Article 9 ΣΤ of the Refugee Law. On 30 August 2024, the Asylum Service rejected the second subsequent application. The decision noted that while the applicant met the criteria for subsidiary protection, he was excluded from it under Article 5(2)(b) of the Refugee Law on grounds of having committed a serious crime. The Asylum Service recommended, citing the provisions of the ECHR and the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), that no return decision should be issued for the applicant to his country of origin, Sri Lanka, where he risked exposure to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. On 27 September 2024, the applicant filed an appeal before the IPAC against the Asylum Service's rejection decision dated 30 August 2024. The trial of that appeal was still pending at the time of the present decision.

Before the Supreme Court, the applicant requested a writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum advancing three main grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court, sitting as a single judge, initially dismissed the request by decision dated 31 October 2024. However, following the applicant's appeal, the Supreme Court, acting in its appellate capacity, upheld the applicant's arguments and granted the writ.

The Supreme Court found that, in its initial decision dated 31 October 2024, it had ignored significant changes in circumstances since the issuance of the initial detention order on 6 January 2024 and the second detention order on 22 February 2024, which rendered the continued detention unlawful. It also held that, in that same decision, the court had incorrectly interpreted Articles 9 ΣΤ (2)(d) and 4(a) of the Refugee Law, as the grounds for the 22 February 2024 detention order had effectively ceased following the Asylum Service's decision on 30 August 2024. Additionally, the court, in its 31 October 2024 decision, failed to consider that the reasons for issuing the detention order on 22 February 2024 under Articles 9 ΣΤ (2)(b) and (d) had ceased to exist, thereby rendering the prolonged detention illegal due to a violation of Article 9 ΣΤ (4)(a) of the Refugee Law.

The court observed that the applicant submitted a second subsequent application on 15 January 2024, while he was in detention as part of the return procedure. The submission of this new application suspended the expulsion process. Therefore, the court clarified that the applicant's detention was then governed by Article 9 ΣΤ of the Refugee Law. The court determined that, as stated in the relevant detention order dated 22 February 2024, the applicant's detention was justified by factors such as his entry into the country with a false passport, his disappearance after his earlier asylum application was rejected, and his unwillingness to comply with the return decision. The court concluded that the submission of the second subsequent application appeared to be an attempt to obstruct or delay the repatriation process. Since no alternative, less restrictive measures could be applied, the court ruled that the applicant's detention should continue as long as the grounds for it remained.

The court observed that the Aliens and Immigration Service's decision of 30 August 2024 acknowledged that the applicant met the criteria for subsidiary protection but excluded him from it due to serious criminal conduct, as outlined in Article 5(2)(b) of the Refugee Law. The court pointed out that the Asylum Service recommended that no return decision be issued to the applicant, citing concerns related to torture and inhuman treatment in Sri Lanka. The court noted that, in its decision of 30 August 2024, the Aliens and Immigration Service had clearly stated that no order should be issued to return the applicant to his country of origin. The court found that the Supreme Court, in its initial decision dated 31 October 2024, had overlooked this critical element. The court clarified that by issuing this position regarding the applicant's return to his country of origin, the Aliens and Immigration Service effectively dismissed the very purpose for which the applicant's deportation and return had been pursued. The court further observed that no new information or actions had been presented to the Supreme Court, that could have reasonably altered the Asylum Service's recommendation regarding the applicant's expulsion and return.

Hence, the court concluded that the applicant's prolonged detention for nearly a year, despite the Asylum Service's recommendation against his repatriation, was unjustified, as the legal basis for his continued detention had effectively ceased to exist. Consequently, the court upheld the appeal, and issued a Habeas Corpus warrant, ordering the applicant's immediate release.