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.
