Asylum seekers’ detention in Moscow airport transit zone was unlawful, inhuman and degrading
JUDGMENT
Z.A. and others v. Russia 21-03-2017 (no. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15, and 3028/16)
SUMMARY
The case Z.A. and Others v. Russia (application nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15, and 3028/16) concerned complaints brought by four individuals from Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Somalia and Syria who were travelling via Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport and were denied entry into Russia. Three of the applicants ended up spending between five and eight months in the transit zone of the airport; one of the applicants, from Somalia, spent nearly two years in the zone.
The Court found in particular that the applicants’ confinement in the transit zone, which had not been of their own choosing, had amounted to a deprivation of liberty and that there had been no
legal basis for it under domestic law. Moreover, it found that the applicants had been detained for extended periods of time in unacceptable conditions, which had undermined the applicants’ dignity, made them feel humiliated and debased, and therefore amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
PROVISION
Article 3
‘Article 5
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants in this case are four individuals holding identity documents from Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Somalia and Syria.
While travelling, independently from each other, via Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, the applicants were denied entry into Russia by the Russian border authority due to irregularities with their travel documents. As a result, three of the applicants ended up spending between five and eight months in 2015/2016 in the transit zone of the airport; one of the applicants, from Somalia, was in the zone for one year and eleven months between 9 April 2015 and 9 March 2017.
All four applicants applied for refugee status in Russia, without success. The Iraqi applicant and the Syrian applicant were eventually resettled by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the “UNHCR”), in Denmark and Sweden respectively. The applicant from the Palestinian territories was able to leave the transit zone when the opportunity to take a flight to Egypt presented itself. The applicant from Somalia left for Mogadishu having lost hope of obtaining refugee status in Russia.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 5 (right to liberty and security)
First, considering that holding the applicants in the international zone of Sheremetyevo airport had made them subject to Russian law, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that the
applicants had not been on Russian territory. Furthermore, the applicants, who had been in the situation of asylum-seekers whose applications had not yet been considered, had not chosen to stay
in the transit zone, as they could neither enter Russian territory nor any State other than the one which they had just left. They had thus not validly consented to being deprived of their liberty. The
Court therefore concluded that their confinement in the transit zone had amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty.
Moreover, the Government had not referred to any legal provision governing this deprivation of liberty, apart from an international treaty on civil aviation (namely, Chapter 5 of Annex 9 to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation). However, no rules were set in that treaty regarding the detention of passengers with irregularities in their travel documents, meaning that the matter was left to Contracting States to regulate under domestic law. As the Government had not referred to any provision of Russian law capable of serving as grounds for justifying the applicants’ deprivation of liberty, the Court considered that their lengthy confinement in the transit zone had not had any legal basis under domestic law, in violation of Article 5 § 1.
Article 3 (conditions of detention)
The Court found it established that the applicants had not had access to such basic amenities as beds, showers or cooking facilities in the transit zone, the Government not having provided any
evidence to the contrary. It considered it unacceptable that anyone could be detained in conditions in which there was a complete failure to take care of such essential needs. The conditions which the applicants had had to endure for extended periods of time had therefore to have caused them considerable mental suffering, undermined their dignity and made them feel humiliated and
debased. The Court considered such treatment inhuman and degrading, in violation of Article 3.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held that Russia was to pay, in respect of pecuniary damage, 15,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant from the Palestinian territories, EUR 20,000 each to the Iraqi and Syrian applicants and EUR 26,000 to the Somalian applicant. EUR 3,500 was awarded to each applicant for costs and expenses.
Separate opinion
Judge Dedov expressed a dissenting opinion
