H.G.D. against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is16. passed on September 2025, and on October 7 of the same year announced the verdict in the caseH.G.D..against Serbia, number 3158/20.
It's a verdictbroughtthree-member Board.
The case refers to the detention of the applicant in the transit zone of Belgrade Airport for a duration of 26 days and the applicant's complaints in this regard. The court found that the applicant's rights from Article 5 para. 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), because the applicant's stay in the transit zone was a deprivation of liberty since he was there without a court order, i.e. without clear rules governing the situation in which he found himself, because he did not have the opportunity to initiate proceedingsin which the court would urgently examine the legality of deprivation of liberty and because he could not exercise the right to compensation for damages due to illegal deprivation of liberty. The Court rejected the applicant's complaints under Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention as clearly unfounded. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant is a citizen of Iran and left his country of origin fearing persecution by the state authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran for religious reasons, having converted from Islam to Christianity. He claimed that his fear was based on the fact that converting from Islam to any other religion in Iran is punishable by death.
On October 31, 2016, the applicant came to Belgrade by flight from Istanbul. Officials of the Border Police Administration did not allow him to enter Serbia because he used a forged Israeli passport, issued in the name of A.G. He was ordered to return to Istanbul on the first flight, which the applicant refused, and he remained in the Transit Zone of Belgrade Airport until November 25, 2016.
After the visit of the legal representative, on November 25, 2016, the applicant expressed his intention to request asylum in the Republic of Serbia. In the confirmation of this intention, it was stated that he tried to enter the Republic of Serbia with a forged Israeli passport, which is why he was detained for a period of 48 hours on the same day by the decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - Border Police Directorate Ku. 20499/16.
Two days later, on November 27, 2016, by the decision of the judge for the preliminary proceedings of the Third Basic Court in Belgrade, the applicant was ordered into custody. The next day, an indictment was filed against the applicant by the Third Basic Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade due to the existence of a well-founded suspicion that he had committed the criminal offense of document forgery.
On December 22, 2016, the Third Basic Court in Belgrade rendered judgment K. 850/16, which found the applicant guilty of the above-mentioned criminal offense and sentenced him to a conditional sentence and the security measure of confiscation of the items of the criminal offense. This verdict was confirmed by the High Court in Belgrade with the verdict Kž. 1. number 129/17 of March 14, 2017.
The applicant then filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on May 21, 2019 by decision Už-9940/2016. In its decision, the Constitutional Court pointed out that according to the previously valid Law on Foreigners ("Official Gazette PC", number 97/08) illegal entry into the Republic of Serbia was considered, among other things, entry using someone else's, invalid, or false travel or other documents. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court concluded that the refusal of a foreign citizen's entry into the territory of the Republic of Serbia, which according to domestic law does not constitute deprivation of liberty and which is not related to the well-founded suspicion that he has committed a criminal offense, cannot be applied by the constitutional norm which stipulates that a person deprived of liberty without a court decision must be handed over to the competent court without delay, and at the latest within 48 hours. The Constitutional Court emphasized that the applicant of the constitutional appeal was detained for 48 hours only after entering Relublik Serbia, by the decision of the competent authority of November 25, 2016, due to the existence of reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal act of falsifying a document, but that the constitutional appeal did not indicate a violation of the rights of the applicant as a suspect in that criminal proceeding.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on December 12, 2019.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to freedom and security from Article 5, para. 1, 2, 4 and 5. of the Convention, because he was deprived of his liberty in the transit zone of Belgrade Airport for 26 days, because during his detention in the transit zone he was allegedly not informed about the reasons for his deprivation of liberty in a language he understood, because he did not have the possibility of a judicial review of his deprivation of liberty, nor did there exist clear rules that would regulate his situation, and because he did not have the opportunity to initiate proceedings for compensation for the loss of his liberty.
THE DECISION THE COURT
• Article 5, para. 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention
The court, first of all, stated that according to domestic law, the detention of a person in the transit zone of the airport was not considered a deprivation of liberty, and that therefore no decision was made in this sense in relation to the applicant. Referring to its established practice, the Court assessed that the applicant's stay in the transit zone of Belgrade Airport for 26 days represented a deprivation of liberty and that his detention without a court order or clear rules is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection against arbitrariness. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant's right from the article was violated5. paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that the applicant did not have the possibility to initiate any procedure in which the court could quickly decide on the legality of his detention, because such detention of a foreigner in the transit zone of the airport was not even considered a deprivation of liberty according to domestic law. Therefore, the Court found that the applicant's right from Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention was violated.
Finally, the Court found that the applicant did not have the possibility to claim compensation for the deprivation of liberty, which was determined to be a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention, and that therefore his right from Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention was violated.
• Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention
The applicant's complaints that border police officers addressed him in English, which he did not know enough to understand the reasons for being detained in the transit zone of the Belgrade airport.dismissed as clearly unfounded, assessing that the applicant was sufficiently informed about the reasons for his detention and that he understood that information. This is because he tried to enter Serbia with a forged passport, for which reason he was refused entry and ordered to return to Istanbul on the next flight, which he refused.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicant EUR 1,800.00 for non-material damages, and EUR 300 for procedural costs.