P.Z., an Iraqi national, entered the Schengen area irregularly in June 2024, travelling through multiple EU Member States before arriving in Estonia, where he was detained at Tallinn Port on 28 July 2024 while attempting to board a ferry to Finland. The applicant was initially detained under Section 15(1) of the Obligation to Leave and Entry Ban Act (OLPEA) for 48 hours, and he then orally requested international protection. Consequently, the detention was reclassified pursuant to Section 36 supra 1(2)(1,2,4,5) of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens (AGIPA). He claimed that he left Iraq escaping threats from his wife's family. He alleged that he had no relatives in Finland, but he later disclosed that his sister resided there. The Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) rejected his asylum application on 29 October 2024 and issued a return order with a 5-year entry ban. P.Z. contested this decision before the Tallinn Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal on 5 March 2025. 

After the rejection of his application and the ensuing termination of his status as an applicant for international protection, the PBGB detained P.Z. again on 6 March 2025 under Sections 15(1), 19(1), and 23(1)(1)–(3) of the OLPEA, citing a risk of absconding and unwillingness to comply with the return order. 

The PBGB applied to the Tallinn Administrative Court for authorization to extend his detention and placement in a detention center (KPK) pending deportation. At the hearing, on 7 March 2025, P.Z. expressed a desire to remain in Estonia, citing a fear of persecution in Iraq, and stated his intention to visit his sister in Finland. He claimed his detention was disproportionate and he was held in poor conditions at KPK. The Tallin Administrative Court agreed with the PBGB's arguments on the applicant's risk of absconding, given his lack of ties to Estonia, his family connections in Finland and his unwillingness to return to Iraq. Additionally, the court found that, contrary to what the applicant had previously claimed, his detention at KPK did not pose grave danger to his physical and psychological well-being. Thus, by an order issued on 7 March 2025, the Tallinn Administrative Court authorised the detention until 7 May 2025. 

P.Z. appealed this decision to the Tallinn Circuit Court on 24 March 2025, requesting an annulment of the extension of the detention order and immediate release from KPK. He argued that the Administrative Court erred in finding that illegal crossing of a border automatically leads to a risk of absconding. He also stated that the existence of his relatives in the EU cannot presuppose that he will cross the border illegally. He argued that consequently, less stringent measures would be sufficient to ensure his stay in Estonia and his cooperation with the PBGB.  

In its reasoning, the Circuit Court emphasized that detention is permissible if there is a risk of the foreigner absconding, or if he lacks the documents needed for his return or is delayed in obtaining them. The risk of absconding must be assessed considering the person's conduct as a whole, including past conduct, statements, and the individual's situation. According to the court, in the present case key factors supporting the risk of absconding included P.Z.'s irregular entry into the Schengen area and Estonia, his original denial of having family in Finland which was later contradicted by evidence, his stated intention to reach Finland and apply for asylum there, his lack of connections in Estonia, his stated willingness to apply for asylum elsewhere if not admitted in Estonia, the rejection of his asylum application and the enforceable return order, and his lack of valid travel documents. According to the court, these cumulative factors demonstrated a risk that if P.Z. were to be released, he would not comply with the obligation to leave Estonia. 

As for the proportionality of detention, the Circuit Court held that detention for up to 2 months was not excessive given the risk of absconding, and less restrictive measures would be ineffective. Regarding health concerns, the court found no evidence that detention posed a serious risk to P.Z.'s physical or psychological well-being. It affirmed that, although the appeal alleged deterioration of the applicant's mental and physical health due to poor nutrition, during the hearing on 7 March 2025, he stated that food was not his primary concern. The court also pointed out that no psychological issues were reported. Additionally, the court affirmed that, if necessary, the applicant would be guaranteed access to health examinations and essential healthcare services during detention. 

The Tallinn Circuit Court dismissed P.Z.'s appeal, upheld the Administrative Court's order and authorized the applicant's detention until 7 May 2025.