On October 1, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on October 1, 2026, in the individual application K.A. v. Cyprus (application no. 5755/25).
According to today’s official announcement, the applicant entered the territory of the Republic illegally from the occupied areas in 2019 and was subsequently arrested and detained by the authorities of the Republic on grounds of national security, for a total period from January 10, 2019, to February 24, 2020, in Menoyia.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
As noted, the applicant’s complaint before the ECHR was based on two grounds. The first concerned a violation of Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), alleging that his detention was unlawful in the absence of a deportation order or the initiation of any criminal proceedings against him, and that his detention was arbitrary due to its duration.
The second complaint concerned a violation of Article 5(4) of the ECHR, on the grounds that the review proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention did not meet the requirements of procedural fairness and equality of arms, since, according to him, he was not disclosed material evidence, nor was he provided with adequate alternative, compensatory safeguards against the restriction of his rights of access to documents.
Regarding the first part of his complaint, as stated in the announcement, the ECHR found a violation of Article 5(1) by the authorities of the Republic, on the grounds that there was not a sufficiently close connection between the detention and the administrative authorities’ aim of preventing unauthorized entry into the Republic.
According to the ECHR, the national authorities were inconsistent regarding the legal basis for the detention: at times they presented national security as an independent ground for detention, and at other times they linked the detention to the pending (to this day) asylum application.
Furthermore, following the applicant’s appeal to the Administrative Court for International Protection, there has been no substantial progress in the examination of his case regarding asylum, while the total duration of his detention (approximately 13.5 months) was deemed excessive and not reasonably necessary for the purposes of Article 5(1)(f).
As the ECHR ultimately emphasized, the prompt completion of the asylum proceedings would serve both the applicant’s interests and those of the State, which had invoked a risk to national security.
With regard to the second part of the applicant’s complaint, the ECHR held that there had been no violation of Article 5(4) of the ECHR.
Although the applicant argued that he did not have access to critical classified information, the ECHR found that he had been informed of the legal basis and the main reasons for his detention, had access to a significant portion of his administrative file, was aware of the substance of the allegations against him, and was represented by a lawyer, generally having the opportunity to effectively challenge the claims that he posed a threat to national security.
Furthermore, the statement notes that another crucial factor was that the Administrative Court had access to all the confidential material and was able to verify whether the non-disclosure of that material was justified.
Consequently, the ECHR found that, despite the restrictions on access to the material due to national security, the review procedure followed provided sufficient safeguards, the statement notes.
The ECHR awarded the applicant €5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €3,750 for costs.
Source: CNA
