18 Apr Inappropriate conditions of immigration detention due to, among other things, the merging of healthy detainees with Covid-19 patients

In the case of Feilazoo v. Malta (application no. 6865/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and a violation of Article 34 (right of individual application). 

The case concerned the conditions of the applicant’s immigration detention and its lawfulness. In February 2010 the applicant pleaded guilty to drug offences and received, besides a prison sentence, a fine and had to pay costs. As he was unable to pay, he was sentenced to an additional 22.5 months’ imprisonment. Close to his release the applicant stated that he would return to Spain, where he had been resident. According to the Government, the Spanish authorities refused him permission to return. On his release he was instead brought to the Immigration Office. There he was told he would be returned to Nigeria. 

As the Nigerian authorities refused to issue a travel document and so the applicant has not yet been deported. 

On 19 August 2019 the applicant lodged his application, with the Government being notified of many of his complaints. The applicant’s legal-aid representative at the time had not submitted any subsequent correspondence or observations despite being requested to do so, with the applicant claiming he had not been contacted by that lawyer and that he hadn’t received legal aid. 

The Court took issue with many aspects of the applicant’s detention. In particular, the Court was struck that the applicant had been held alone without access to natural light for 77 days, during much of which time he had also had no access to exercise. The Court was also very concerned by the unrebutted allegations that the applicant had been housed with people in Covid-19 quarantine where there appeared to have been no medical reason to do so. Overall it found the conditions inadequate. In the light of the above, the Court found a violation of the applicant’s Article 3 rights.  

The Court also found that the authorities had not been diligent enough in processing his deportation, and that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had ceased to be valid. The Court thus found a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security.

The Court also considered that the authorities had failed to ensure that the applicant had been provided with the possibility of obtaining copies of documents which he had needed to substantiate his application, and that his correspondence concerning the case before the Court had not been dealt with confidentially, thus amounting to an unjustified interference with his right of individual application. The Court also found that the applicant’s representation had been inadequate in the light of, especially, the lack of diligence in dealing with his case, the lack of regular lawyer-client contact despite the Court’s requests, and the inaction on the part of the authorities to rectify the situation. In the light of the above, the Court found a violation of the applicant’s right of individual application.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights