Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
02/04/2019
ECHR rules on detention pending asylum proceedings

ECLI
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0402JUD006267616
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Source
HUDOC
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
No
Original Documents
Type
Judgment
Relevant Legislative Provisions
European Convention on Human Rights; Revised Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection) and/or RCD 2003/9/CE;
Reference
Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], Aboya Boa Jean v Malta, 62676/16, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0402JUD006267616, 02 April 2019. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=663
Case history
Related cases:
Abstract

According ECHR Press Release: The applicant, Serge Aboya Boa Jean, is a national of the Ivory Coast who was born in 1978. The case concerned his immigration detention in Safi Barracks detention centre in Malta for two months in 2016. Mr Aboya Boa Jean arrived in Malta by plane in September 2016. Presenting his national passport, he told the immigration authorities that he was recognised as a refugee in Armenia and intended to seek asylum in Malta. He was however denied entry and placed in immigration detention on the ground that he might abscond before the authorities could examine his asylum application. In October 2016 the immigration Appeals Board confirmed the legality of his detention, specifying that his refugee status in Armenia had not yet been determined and that he had been found in possession of a travel ticket for Italy and a forged Italian passport. Within the same month, other courts also upheld the legality of his detention. He was released from immigration detention on 8 November 2016, and had to report to a police station daily. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Aboya Boa Jean alleged that his detention had beenunlawful and arbitrary. Further relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he also alleged that the remedy available to him to challenge his detention had not been speedy or effective. The Court held that there was no violation

Country of Decision
Council of Europe
Court Name
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
Case Number
62676/16
Date of Decision
02/04/2019
Country of Origin
Keywords
Detention/ Alternatives to Detention