Malta urged to improve detention conditions for asylum seekers

In a second ruling of its kind, the European Court of Human Rights today ruled that Malta "needs to adopt new measures to improve the conditions of detained asylum seekers and allow them to obtain speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention."

In today's Chamber judgment in the case of an alleged Sierra Leonean asylum seeker, which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights granting the right to liberty and security and a violation the right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court.

The court held that Malta was to pay the migrant €24,000 euros in respect of non- pecuniary damage, and €3,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

The case involves, Ibrahim Suso Musa, an alleged Sierra Leonean asylum seeker, who complained that his detention had been unlawful and that he had not had an effective means to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed.

The court found that Suso Musa's detention preceding the determination of his asylum request had been arbitrary.

The conditions of his place of detention had been highly problematic from the standpoint of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment.

Moreover, it had taken the authorities an unreasonable amount of time to determine whether the applicant should have been allowed to remain in Malta.

As regards the period of detention following the determination of Suso Musa's asylum request, it found that the deportation proceedings had not been prosecuted with due diligence.

Moreover, the applicant had not been allowed to have a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention.

The court considered that the problems detected in this case could give rise to further similar applications.

Therefore, it requested the Maltese authorities to establish a mechanism to allow individuals seeking a review of the lawfulness of their immigration detention to obtain a determination of their claim within a reasonable time-limit.

It further recommended Malta to take the necessary steps to improve the conditions and shorten the length of detention of asylum seekers.

The applicant, Ibrahim Suso Musa, allegedly a Sierra Leone national, entered Malta in an irregular manner by boat in April 2011.

Upon arrival, he was arrested by the police and detained. His asylum application was rejected in a decision upheld in April 2012 and he remained in detention with a view to his removal until March 2013.

The court recalled that Convention on Human Rights allowed the deprivation of liberty of a person to prevent him effecting an unauthorised entry into the country.

In a previous case, the court had considered that until a State had authorised entry to the country, any entry was unauthorised, and that the detention of a person who wished to effect entry and who needed but did not yet have authorisation to do so could be to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry.

It had not accepted that, as soon as an asylum seeker had surrendered himself to the immigration authorities, he was seeking to effect an authorised entry, with the result that his detention could not be justified under the Convention on Human Rights.

The court examined Suso Musa's claim that Maltese law authorised the entry or stay of immigrants pending a decision on their asylum requests, with the result that he should not have been detained during the period following his lodging of his asylum request.

It accepted that it was possible for the domestic law of a Contracting State to create a more favourable regime for asylum seekers.

Although Maltese law was open to different interpretations and therefore clarification of the legal framework was necessary, the Court was prepared to accept that the detention had a sufficiently clear legal basis, and that, given that it had not been established that the applicant had actually been granted formal authorisation to stay Suso Musa's detention pending the determination of his asylum request had been covered by the Convention on Human Rights.

However, it found that his detention had been arbitrary. Indeed, the conditions of his place of detention had been highly problematic from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights.

Moreover, it had taken the authorities an unreasonable amount of time to determine whether the applicant should have been allowed to remain in Malta.

The Court then examined the period of detention following the determination of Suso Musa's asylum request and found that the deportation proceedings had not been prosecuted with due diligence.

The Court found that there had been a breach of the Convention on account of the absence of a remedy enabling the applicant to have a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention.

The Court considered that the problems detected in this case could give rise to further similar applications. Therefore, it requested the Maltese authorities to establish a mechanism to allow individuals seeking a review of the lawfulness of their immigration detention to obtain a determination of their claim within a reasonable time-limit.

It further recommended the Maltese authorities to take the necessary steps to improve the conditions and shorten the length of detention of asylum seekers.