According to the ECHR's information note, 

Facts: The applicant, an Iraqi national, fled his country of origin and arrived at London Heathrow Airport on 30 December 2000, where he immediately claimed asylum and was granted “temporary admission”. On 2 January 2001, on reporting to the immigration authorities, he was detained and transferred to a reception centre used for asylum-seekers who were not likely to abscond and who could be dealt with by a “fast track” procedure. On 5 January 2001 the applicant's representative telephoned the Chief Immigration Officer and was told that the reason for the detention was that the applicant was an Iraqi who met the criteria to be detained at the centre in question. His asylum claim was initially refused on 8 January 2001 and he was formally refused leave to enter the UK. He was released the next day. He appealed against the Home Office decision and was subsequently granted asylum. He applied in vain for permission for judicial review of his detention, claiming that it had been unlawful under domestic law and under Article 5 of the Convention.

Law: Article 5(1)(f) – The Court firstly examined whether the applicant had been detained in order to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the United Kingdom: although he had applied for asylum and had been granted temporary admission to the country on 30 December 2000, and had been at large until 2 January 2001, his detention from that date had nevertheless been to prevent his effecting an unlawful entry because, lacking formal admission clearance, he had not “lawfully” entered the country. The only requirement under Article 5(1)(f) for the detention of an individual under such circumstances, was that that detention should be imposed as a genuine part of the process to determine whether the individual should be granted immigration clearance and/or asylum, and that it should not otherwise be arbitrary. The applicant's detention at the centre in question had been a bona fide application of the policy on “fast-track” immigration decisions. As to the question of possible arbitrariness, the Court noted that the applicant had been released once his asylum claim had been refused. The detention had lasted a total of seven days, which had not been excessive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: no violation (four votes to three).

Article 5(2) – The Court noted that the applicant's representative had been informed of the reason for the applicant's detention when his client had been in detention for some 76 hours. Such a delay had not been compatible with the requirement that such reasons be given promptly.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The finding of a violation of Article 5(2) constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.