The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints, under Article 5 of the Convention, that their arrest and detention as migrants in an irregular situation were unlawful, and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and had no effective access to the procedure to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. It also concerns the eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered.
The Court found in particular that Article 5 was applicable to the applicants’ case as their presence in
the transit zone had not been voluntary; they had been left to their own devices for the entire
period of their stay, which had lasted between five and 19 months depending on the applicant;
there had been no realistic prospect of them being able to leave the zone; and the authorities had
not adhered to the domestic legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers.
Given the absence of a legal basis for their being confined to the transit zone, a situation made
worse by them being impeded in accessing the asylum system, the Court concluded that there had
been a violation of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 5 § 1.
The conditions the applicants had lived in had also been appalling: they had had to sleep in the
transit zone, a busy and constantly lit area, with no access to washing or cooking facilities. There had
thus also been a breach of Article 3 as their treatment had been degrading.
