Four Afghan nationals arrived in 2016 in the Chios Island with their families. They were placed in the Vial hotspot and by four decisions of 21 March 2016, the Chief of Police of Chios ordered their detention. On 24 March 2016, the Chief of Police ordered the expulsion of the applicants and the extension of their detention on the grounds that the applicants were at risk of absconding. The applicants requested asylum on 4 April 2016. The Chief of Police took four decisions suspending the deportation of the applicants until the end of the procedure for examining their asylum applications.

The applicants invoked Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4) (right to liberty and to security) of the European Convention. They complained that their detention was arbitrary and that there was an impossibility to obtain a judicial decision on the legality of their detention. The court examined whether the applicants could have lodged an appeal, without hindrance, as early as 24 March 2016, the date on which the decisions ordering their expulsion and the extension of their detention were adopted.

In its reasoning, the court recalled that to determine whether an individual is ‘deprived of liberty' within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention, it is necessary to examine their specific situation and to consider a set of criteria such as the nature, duration, effects and manner of execution of the measure in question. The court noted that between deprivation and restriction of liberty, there is only a difference of degree or intensity, not of nature or essence. Moreover, the court observed that in principle, domestic law provides for a remedy through which detention pending deportation can be effectively challenged. However, the court noted that the applicants only spoke and understood Farsi, while the decisions were written in Greek. Furthermore, the court observed that it was not certain that the applicants, who were not assisted by any lawyer at the Vial centre, had sufficient legal knowledge to understand the content of the brochure that the Government claimed to have provided at their arrival to the Centre. The brochure did not indicate clear instructions concerning which entity to reach to challenge the decisions. On this, the court referred to its judgment in J.R. and Others v. Greece (No 22696/16, 25 January 2025) in which the court found that the information contained in the brochure in question could not be analysed as information in simple and accessible language for the applicants on the legal and factual reasons for their deprivation of liberty, enabling them to challenge its legality before a court under Article 5(4) of the Convention. The court also referred to the findings of the Special Representative on Migration and Refugees of the Council of Europe and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and observed that the applicants were not represented by a lawyer from an NGO present at the Centre. The court concluded that there was a violation of Article 5(4) of the Convention.

On the alleged violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, the court recalled that it has already examined the lawfulness of the detention of asylum seekers in the Vial centre in its judgment in J.R. and Others and that it concluded that the detention of the individuals concerned was not arbitrary and could not be considered ‘unlawful' within the meaning of Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention. The court noted that is the present case, the applicants were detained for a period of one month, from 21 March to 21 April 2016, in the same circumstances as the applicants in the case of J.R. and Others, and that they were released no later than one month after expressing their wish to seek asylum. Therefore, the court concluded that this complaint was manifestly unfounded and must be dismissed.

On the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the court recalled that, in the case of J.R. and Others, it had already examined the conditions of detention at the Vial centre and concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3 for the same period of detention as in the present case. The court noted that the conditions of detention at the Vial centre have not changed since the J.R. case. Moreover, the court referred to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)'s visits in 2016 in the hotspots of the Aegean islands, during which the CPT was not particularly critical of the conditions at the Vial centre. The Court further noted that, as in the case of J.R. and Others, the present case was characterised by the brevity of the applicants' detention in the conditions denounced by them. Therefore, the court considered that the threshold of severity required for their detention to be classified as inhuman or degrading treatment was not reached and thus found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention.