Suso Musa v. Malta - 42337/12 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 776 (23 July 2013)

Suso Musa v. Malta - 42337/12 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 776 (23 July 2013)

The applicant's detention was not compatible with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention because the period of detention, particularly in view of the conditions, was unreasonable and arbitrary, and there was a lack of effective and speedy remedy to challenge the lawfulness of detention.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 776
Parties
Applicant: Suso Musa; Respondent: Malta
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
23 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) and Article 5 § 4 found unanimously.
Legal Topics
Detention of Asylum Seekers, Article 5 ECHR, Lawfulness of Detention, Right to Liberty, Remedies for Unlawful Detention
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Detention of Asylum Seekers Article 5 ECHR Lawfulness of Detention Right to Liberty Remedies for Unlawful Detention

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suso Musa

Applicant

Malta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's detention was lawful under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had access to an effective and speedy remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5 § 4

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's detention was not compatible with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention because the period of detention, particularly in view of the conditions, was unreasonable and arbitrary, and there was a lack of effective and speedy remedy to challenge the lawfulness of detention.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) and Article 5 § 4 found unanimously.

Orders

  • EUR 24,000 awarded to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.