An Iranian national who arrived in Cyprus on 2 January 2022 and was granted refugee status on 25 August 2004 was arrested on 4 November 2023 for his alleged involvement in Iranian terrorist activities targeting Israeli nationals. He was detained on 19 November 2023 under an order issued in accordance with Article 14 of the Aliens and Immigration Law. A deportation order was also issued, pursuant to Article 29 of the Refugees Law 2000 (6(I)/2000). The applicant brought an action before the Administrative Court against the legality of both orders and agreed to remain in detention until the Administrative Court's decision, which dismissed the appeal on 1 March 2024. The Administrative Court found that the applicant constituted a real, present and serious threat to the security of society and public order, which precluded alternative measures to detention from being considered. This decision was not appealed.  

The applicant filed a civil application for a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court acting in its prerogative jurisdiction (trial court), contesting the lawfulness of his detention, which was dismissed on 24 July 2024. The trial court noted that while the applicant was offered several alternative countries for deportation, he repeatedly expressed a preference to be deported to Israel. However, deportation to Israel had not been possible due to the volatile security situation in the Middle East, which resulted in limited flights and available air travel seats. Moreover, the trial court observed that the applicant had willingly remained in detention for over 2 months, and thus it found that the detention had not exceeded reasonable time limits.  

The applicant appealed the habeas corpus dismissal to the Supreme Court, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction (appellate court). He claimed that: 1) the trial court had failed to legally and factually reason why the duration of the detention had not become unlawful; 2) the trial court's decision was delivered in error, since the failure to deport the applicant to Israel was not due to security reasons but to Israel's refusal of Cyprus' deportation request; and 3) the trial court failed to examine whether the detention and possible deportation violated the principle of non-refoulement.  

The appellate court rejected the first two grounds of appeal. It stated that the duration of the detention had not exceeded reasonable limits, and that the delay in the deportation was not attributable to state inaction but to a number of factors, such as the applicant's refusal to accept relocation to alternative countries, his insistence on deportation to Israel despite Israel's refusal to accept him, and regional instability affecting flight availability. The appellate court also noted that the applicant had voluntarily remained in detention during part of the administrative proceedings and that authorities had continued to work towards facilitating deportation, such as by attempting to issue a biometric passport.  

The appellate court did not rule on the merits of the third ground of appeal. It argued that matters concerning the principle of non-refoulement were not within the scope of habeas corpus proceedings and should be addressed through administrative appeals. 

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decision, confirming the lawfulness of the applicant's detention.