You are here:

Cyprus/ Administrative Court/ [2019] 442/2019

….. Alabdalla v. The Republic of Cyprus through the Minister of the Interior and the Chief Immigration Officer

Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
Administrative Court
Decision date:

Key facts of the case:

The applicant was a Syrian national who arrived in Cyprus with two other persons and sought to apply for asylum. The authorities suspected that they might be involved in irregegular migration because of inconsistencies in their narrative. Through further questioning and investigation, the police identified that they might be jihadist fighters, including photos of himself with others in military uniforms and holding Kalashnikov, and issued search warrants and detention orders for reasons of national security. The applicant challenged these orders in Court. The police submitted confidential documents to the Court, which the applicant’s lawyer was only permitted to inspect on the spot. The applicant argued that the police detention order infringes Council Directive 2013/33/EC for not complying with the principles of necessity and proportionality and for not having been duly investigated and individually justified. The applicant further invoked infringement of article 6 of the Charter and article 5 of the ECHR, arguing that his detention was unnecessary and inconsistent with the ECHR jurisprudence, as it relied only on suspicions and speculations.

Key legal question:

Whether the detention order was issued in violation of the EU Charter, the ECHR, Council Directive 2013/33/EC and national law, for being unnecessary, disproportionate, inadequately researched or too generally justified.

Outcome of the case:

The Court endorsed the position that detention was imperative for public security reasons, pointing out that the detention order was individually justified and duly investigated. There was no infringement of either Charter article 6 or ECHR article 5 since the indications suggesting that the applicant may be a jihadist fighter were concrete, personalized and clear ,thus, providing legitimate reasons for placing the applicant under arrest.