9.  The applicant, who is of Kurdish origin, was born in 1969 in north‑west Syria and lives in Nicosia. 10.  The applicant left Syria on 21 May 2005 and, after travelling to Turkey and then to the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”), he entered Cyprus unlawfully. 11.  He applied for asylum on 12 September 2005 and an interview was held on 21 June 2006 with the Asylum Service. 12.  His application was dismissed by the Asylum Service on 21 July 2006 on the ground that the applicant did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2005[1], namely, he had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well-founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons. The Asylum Service noted that there had been discrepancies in his account of the facts which undermined his credibility. In particular, there had been significant contradictions regarding his origins. It was also observed that the applicant had not been able to reply satisfactorily and with precision to certain questions or to give the information required in a persuasive manner. In conclusion, the Asylum Service found that the asylum application had not been substantiated. 13.  On 1 August 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees (hereafter “the Reviewing Authority”) against the Asylum Service’s decision. The appeal was dismissed on 1 February 2008. 14.  The Reviewing Authority upheld the decision of the Asylum Service. In its decision it observed that the applicant’s claims had not been credible and had been vague and unsubstantiated. The Reviewing Authority noted, inter alia, that although the applicant had stated in his interview with the Asylum Service that he had been arrested and detained for three days by the Syrian military security forces, that had been in 1992, thirteen years before he decided to leave the country. With the exception of this incident, he had confirmed that he had never been harassed by the Syrian authorities and had never been persecuted. Moreover, although the applicant claimed that he had stated in his interview with the Asylum Service that he had been subjected to electric shock treatment and the “wheel treatment” whilst in detention in Syria, it transpired from the minutes of that interview that he had in fact stated that the electric cables had not functioned and had not mentioned that the wheel had been used to torture him. The Asylum Service had therefore not considered it necessary to refer him for a medical examination. The Reviewing Authority also observed that the applicant had merely claimed that he had left Syria on account of the increased pressure on the Kurdish population in that country following the events in Qamishli in 2004 and his fear of being arrested in the future, and because of his political activities as a member of the Yekiti Party. His allegations, however, had been general and vague. Further, his written asylum application had been based on other grounds. In particular, in his application the applicant had stated that he had come to Cyprus in search of work and better living conditions. 15.  Lastly, the Reviewing Authority pointed out that the applicant had been able to obtain a passport lawfully and to leave Syria. As regards the applicant’s claims concerning his involvement with the Yekiti Party in Syria, it pointed out that the applicant’s replies to questions put to him about the party were too general and vague. 16.  In conclusion, the Reviewing Authority held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution and that if he returned to Syria his life would be in danger or he would be imprisoned. 17.  On 1 September 2008, following a request by the Cyprus-Kurdish Friendship Association to the Minister of the Interior on 22 July 2008, the applicant’s file was reopened by the Asylum Service in order to examine new information put forward by the applicant, mainly concerning his activities as the head of the Yekiti Party in Cyprus. The applicant was again interviewed by the Asylum Service on 16 February 2009. 18.  According to the Government, on 8 June 2010 an officer of the Asylum Service expressed the opinion that the information submitted by the applicant could not be considered as new evidence forming the basis of a new claim. The Government submitted an internal note to this effect. 19.  The applicant was arrested on 11 June 2010 and deportation and detention orders were issued against him on the same day (see paragraph 41 below). 20.  On 7 July 2010 the Asylum Service sent the applicant’s file to the Reviewing Authority following an opinion given by the Attorney-General that the relevant body which should examine the new evidence put forward by the applicant was the Reviewing Authority and not the Asylum Service. 21.  On 20 August 2010 the Minister of the Interior cancelled the deportation and detention orders of 11 June 2010 and issued new ones against the applicant on other grounds (see paragraph 48 below). 22.  On 30 September 2010 the Reviewing Authority informed the applicant that the information submitted before it could not alter in any manner its initial decision not to recognise him as a refugee within the meaning of Articles 3 and 19 of the Refugee Law of 2000-2009[2]. The applicant was served with the relevant letter on 6 October 2010. On the copy of the letter provided by the Government it is stated that the applicant was served with the letter on 6 October 2010 but refused to sign for it, requesting instead to see his lawyer. 23.  On 8 October 2010 the applicant brought a “recourse” (judicial review proceedings) before the Supreme Court (first-instance revisional jurisdiction) under Article 146 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the Reviewing Authority of 30 September 2010. 24.  Following advice from the Attorney-General, the Reviewing Authority decided to re-open the applicant’s file in order to consider the content of his second interview at the Asylum Service on 16 February 2009 (see paragraph 17 above). 25.  The applicant was informed by letter dated 8 April 2011 that the Reviewing Authority had decided to withdraw its previous decision (see paragraph 22 above) and to reopen and re-examine his claim taking into consideration the content of his second interview with the Asylum Service. 26.  The applicant was called on by the Reviewing Authority to give another interview as an examination of the minutes of the applicant’s interview at the Asylum Service showed that it had been inadequate. The applicant was interviewed by the Reviewing Authority on 26 April 2011. 27.  On 29 April 2011 the Reviewing Authority decided to recognise the applicant as a refugee pursuant to the Refugee Law of 2000-2009 and the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter “the 1951 Geneva Convention”). The relevant excerpt of the decision reads as follows:
“During the interview the applicant was asked about his activities in Cyprus and in particular about his membership of the Cypriot-Kurdish Friendship Association as well as his activities in the Yekiti opposition Party in Cyprus. From his interview it was ascertained that the applicant is credible in so far as his feelings for the rights of the Kurds in Syria are concerned. Consequently, the applicant started to get involved in political matters and to publicly express his opinion about the bad state of affairs in Syria. In particular, the applicant has an active role in the Yekiti Party in Cyprus as he is its founder and organises and coordinates his compatriots in anti-regime demonstrations and demonstrations for the rights of Kurds.
Among the documents the applicant provided the Asylum Service with, there were photographs which show him organising, coordinating and leading the demonstrations that took place in the Republic of Cyprus. Consequently, his name has been connected with anti-regime demonstrations and with a negative stance towards the existing government of Syria. In addition, as an activist, the applicant is considered to be someone who causes problems for the Syrian authorities.
Following his interview on 26 April 2011, the applicant provided the Reviewing Authority with additional documents. These are:
1) Documents from the Kurdish Organisation for Human Rights in Austria which refer to the activity of the applicant in Cyprus and to photographs of him which were published in Cypriot newspapers and which have come to the attention of the Syrian authorities.
2) The organigram of the Yekiti Party in Cyprus, which shows that the applicant is the head of the party.
Lastly, following an inquiry, it was ascertained that the applicant had spoken about the problems faced by Kurds in the Republic and in Syria to local newspapers with pan-Cyprian circulation. More specifically, speaking as the representative of the Kurdish Yekiti Party in Cyprus the applicant had stated that Kurds did not have rights in Syria, as one of these rights was to speak one’s own language, something which is prohibited [for Kurds] in Syria. In addition, the applicant expressed fears that upon his return he would be arrested as [the authorities] knew him.
The applicant has proved in a convincing manner that his fear of persecution and danger to his life in the event of his return to Syria is objectively credible. He is already stigmatised by the authorities of his country and according to the COI (country of origin information) a well-founded fear of persecution by the authorities in his country because of his political opposition activity has been substantiated. Upon examination it was ascertained that none of the exclusion clauses apply to the applicant’s case and, as a result, he should be granted refugee status as provided for in Article 3 of the Refugee Law.
In view of all the above, it is evident that the real circumstances of the present application, [fulfil] the necessary conditions for the granting of refugee status provided for in section 3 of the Refugee Law 2000-2009 and the 1951 Geneva Convention.
The applicant has succeeded in showing a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of political opinions and should therefore be granted refugee status.
On the basis of the above, it is decided that [the applicant] be granted refugee status.” 28.  Following the above decision, on 6 June 2011 the applicant withdrew his recourse with the Supreme Court (see paragraph 23 above). 29.  On 17 May 2010 the Yekiti Party and other Kurds from Syria organised a demonstration in Nicosia, near the Representation of the European Commission, the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance and the Government Printing Office. They were protesting against the restrictive policies of the Cypriot Asylum Service in granting international protection. About 150 Kurds from Syria, including the applicant, remained in the area around the clock, having set up about eighty tents on the pavement. According to the Government, the encampment conditions were unsanitary and protesters were obstructing road and pedestrian traffic. The encampment had become a hazard to public health and created a public nuisance. The protesters performed their daily chores on the pavement, including cooking and washing in unsanitary conditions. The sewage pits had overflown, causing a nuisance and offensive odours. The public lavatories were dirty and the rubbish bins of the Government buildings were being used and, as a result, were continuously overflowing. Furthermore, the protesters were unlawfully obtaining electricity from the Printing Office. Members of the public who lived or worked in the area had complained to the authorities. The Government submitted that efforts had been made by the authorities to persuade the protesters to leave, but to no avail. As a result, the authorities had decided to take action to remove the protesters from the area. 30.  On 28 May 2010 instructions were given by the Minister of the Interior to proceed with the deportation of Syrian-Kurdish failed asylum seekers in the normal way. 31.  On 31 May 2010 the Minister requested the Chief of Police, among others, to take action in order to implement his instructions. Further, he endorsed suggestions made by the competent authorities that deportation and detention orders be issued against Syrian-Kurdish failed asylum seekers who had passports and did not have Ajanib or Maktoumeen status and that the police execute the orders starting with the ones issued against the leaders of the protesters. The police were also directed to take into account the policy guidelines and to use discreet methods of arrest. 32.  According to the Government, letters were sent by the Civil Registry and Migration Department to a number of failed Syrian-Kurdish asylum-seekers informing them that they had to make arrangements to leave Cyprus in view of their asylum applications being turned down. The Government submitted copies of thirty such letters. In thirteen cases the letters were dated 1 June 2010 (in some the asylum decisions having been taken as far back as 2007) and in one case 9 June 2010 (the asylum decision procedure having been completed at the end of 2009). Two other letters were dated 16 June 2010 (the asylum procedures having been completed in early 2008) and 28 June 2010 (the asylum procedures having been completed in March 2010). Further, one letter was dated 5 February 2011 in a case where the asylum procedure had been completed on 22 April 2010 and the person in question had voluntarily agreed and did return to Syria on 24 September 2010. 33.  From documents submitted by the Government it appears that from 31 May until 7 June 2010 the authorities kept the area under surveillance and kept a record of the protesters’ daily activities and of all comings and goings. In the relevant records it is noted that invariably, between 1.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m., things were, in general, quiet, and everyone was sleeping apart from those keeping guard. During the above-mentioned period a large-scale operation was organised by the Police Emergency Response Unit, “ERU” (“ΜΜΑΔ”), and a number of other authorities, including the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit, for the removal of the protesters and their transfer to the ERU headquarters for the purpose of ascertaining their status on a case-by-case basis. 34.  In the meantime, between 28 May 2010 and 2 June 2010 orders for the detention and deportation of forty-five failed asylum seekers were issued following background checks. Letters were sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Nicosia Police to the Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, containing a short paragraph with information as to the immigration status of each person. This information included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by the Asylum Service, the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Reviewing Authority, where lodged, and the date some of those concerned had been included on the authorities’ “stop list” (a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from Cyprus is banned or subject to monitoring). The letters recommended the issuance of deportation and detention orders. The Government submitted copies of two such letters with information concerning thirteen people. 35.  On 2 June 2010, letters were also prepared in English by the Civil Registry and Migration Department informing those concerned of the decision to detain and deport them. The Government submitted that, at the time, the authorities did not know whether those individuals were among the protesters. 36.  The removal operation was carried out on 11 June 2010, between approximately 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. with the participation of about 250 officers from the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit, the ERU, the Nicosia District Police Division, the Traffic Division, the Fire Service and the Office for Combating Discrimination of the Cyprus Police Headquarters. The protesters, including the applicant, were led to buses, apparently without any reaction or resistance on their part. At 3.22 a.m. the mini buses carrying the male protesters left. The women, children and babies followed at 3.35 a.m. A total of 149 people were located at the place of protest and were transferred to the ERU headquarters: eighty-seven men, twenty-two women and forty children. Upon arrival, registration took place and the status of each person was examined using computers which had been specially installed the day before. The Government submitted that during this period the protesters had not been handcuffed or put in cells but had been assembled in rooms and given food and drink. It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that by 6.40 a.m. the identification of approximately half of the group had been completed and that the whole operation had ended by 4.30 p.m. 37.  It was ascertained that seventy-six of the adults, along with their thirty children, were in the Republic unlawfully. Their asylum applications had either been dismissed or their files closed for failure to attend interviews. Those who had appealed to the Reviewing Authority had had their appeals dismissed. Some final decisions dated back to 2006. A number of people had also been included on the authorities’ “stop list”. Deportation orders had already been issued for twenty-three of them (see paragraph 34 above). 38.  The authorities deported twenty-two people on the same day at around 6.30 p.m. (nineteen adults and three children). Forty-four people (forty-two men and two women), including the applicant, were charged with the criminal offence of unlawful stay in the Republic under section 19(2) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see paragraph 65 below). They were arrested and transferred to various detention centres in Cyprus. The applicant was placed in the immigration detention facilities in the Nicosia Central Prisons (Block 10). All those who were found to be legally resident in the Republic returned to their homes. Further, on humanitarian grounds, thirteen women whose husbands were detained pending deportation and who had a total of twenty-seven children between them were not arrested themselves. 39.  According to the Government the applicant and his co-detainees were informed orally that they had been arrested and detained on the basis that they had been staying in the Republic unlawfully and were thus “prohibited immigrants” (see § 62 below). They were also informed of their rights pursuant to the Rights of Persons Arrested and Detained Law 2005 (Law no. 163(I)/of 2005) (see paragraph 93 below) and, in particular, of their right to contact by phone, in person and in private, a lawyer of their own choice. The applicant submitted that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest and detention on that date. 40.  On the same day letters were sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Nicosia Police to the Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, recommending the issuance of deportation and detention orders. The letters contained a short paragraph in respect of each person with information as to his or her immigration status. This included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by the Asylum Service and the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Reviewing Authority where lodged. Some letters also referred to the date the asylum application had been lodged and the date some of the individuals concerned had been included on the authorities’ “stop list”. The Government submitted copies of letters concerning thirty-seven people[3]. 41.  Deportation and detention orders were also issued in Greek on the same day in respect of the remaining fifty-three people detained (see paragraph 37 above), including the applicant, pursuant to section 14 (6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the ground that they were “prohibited immigrants” within the meaning of section 6(1)(k) of that Law. These were couched in identical terms. In respect of two people the orders also mentioned sections 6(1)(i) and 6(1)(l) of the Law. 42.  Subsequently, on the same date, letters were prepared in English by the Civil Registry and Migration Department informing all the detainees individually, including the applicant, of the decision to detain and deport them. The Government submitted thirty-seven copies of these letters. The text of the letter addressed to the applicant reads as follows:
“You are hereby informed that you are an illegal immigrant by virtue of paragraph (k). section 1, Article 6 of the Aliens and Immigration law, Chapter 105, as amended until 2009, because you of illegal entry [sic]
Consequently your temporary residence permit/migration permit has been revoked and I have proceeded with the issue of deportation orders and detention orders dated 11th June 2010 against you.
You have the right to be represented before me, or before any other Authority of the Republic and express possible objections against your deportation and seek the services of an interpreter.” 43.  The text of the remaining copies of the letters submitted by the Government was virtually identical, a standard template having been used. The only differences were that some letters referred to illegal stay rather than illegal entry and that the letters issued earlier referred to 2 June 2010 as the date of issuance of the deportation and detention orders (see paragraph 34 above). 44.  On the copy of the letter to the applicant provided by the Government, there is a handwritten signed note by a police officer stating that the letter was served on the applicant on 18 June 2010 but that he refused to receive and sign for it. The other letters had a similar note or stamp on them with the same date, stating that the person concerned had refused to sign for and/or receive the letter. In a letter dated 7 September 2010 the Government stated that the applicant had been served on 18 June 2010. In their subsequent observations the Government submitted, however, that this was the second attempt to serve the letters, the first attempt having been made on 11 June 2010, that is, the day of the arrest. 45.  The applicant submitted that he had never refused to receive any kind of information in writing. He claimed that it had only been on 14 June 2010 that he had been informed orally that he would be deported to Syria on the same day but that the deportation and detention orders were not served on him on that date or subsequently. He submitted that he had eventually been informed by his lawyer, following the receipt of information submitted by the Government to the Court in the context of the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that deportation and detention orders had been issued against him on 11 June 2010. 46.  From the documents submitted by the Government, it appears that at least another fourteen of the detainees were to be deported on 14 June 2010[4]. 47.  In a letter dated 12 October 2010 the Government informed the Court that on 17 August 2010 the Minister of the Interior had declared the applicant an illegal immigrant on public order grounds under section 6(1)(g) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the basis of information that he had been involved in activities relating to receiving money from prospective Kurdish immigrants in exchange for “securing” residence and work permits in Cyprus. 48.  On 20 August 2010 the Minister of Interior issued deportation and detention orders based on the above-mentioned provision. The previous orders of 11 June 2010 were cancelled. The applicant submitted that he had not been notified of the new orders. The Government did not comment on the matter and did not submit a copy of a letter notifying the applicant of these orders. 49.  The applicant was released from detention on 3 May 2011 following the decision to grant him refugee status (see paragraph 27 above). 50.  On 24 January 2011 the applicant filed a habeas corpus application claiming that his continued detention from 11 June 2010 had violated Article 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Members states for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. The applicant, relying on the Court’s judgment in Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑V) and the Commission’s report in Samie Ali v. Switzerland (no. 24881/94, Commission’s report of 26 February 1997) also claimed that his detention had breached Article 11 (2) of the Constitution and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 51.  On 23 February 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the application. With regard to the preliminary issues raised, the Supreme Court first of all held that it had the competence to examine the application as it was called upon to examine the lawfulness of the applicant’s protracted detention and not the lawfulness of the deportation and detention orders. The court could, within the context of a habeas corpus application, examine the conformity of the applicant’s detention with Article 15 (3) of the Directive and Article 11 (2) (f) of the Constitution. The applicant was not estopped from bringing a habeas corpus application due to the fact that he had not challenged the deportation and detention orders issued against him. Even if the lawfulness of the detention was assumed, detention for the purpose of deportation could not be indefinite and the detainee left without the right to seek his release. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the applicant was estopped from bringing the application because his continued detention had been brought about by his own actions, that is, by his application to the Strasbourg Court for an interim measure suspending his deportation. 52.  The Supreme Court then examined the substance of the application. It noted that the Directive had direct effect in the domestic law, as the period for transposition had expired and the Directive had not been transposed. It could therefore be relied on in the proceedings. However, it went on to hold that the six-month period provided for in the Directive had not yet started to run. The applicant had been arrested on 11 June 2010 with a view to his deportation but had not been deported by the Government in view of the application by the Court on 12 June 2010 of Rule 39 and the issuing of an interim measure suspending his deportation. Consequently, the authorities had not been able to deport him. As the applicant himself had taken steps to suspend his deportation, the ensuing time could not be held against the Government and could not be taken into account for the purposes of Article 15 (5) and (6) of the Directive. The six-month period would start to run from the moment that the interim measure had been lifted. From that moment onwards the Government had been under an obligation in accordance with Article 15 (1) of the Directive to proceed with the applicant’s deportation with due diligence. The situation would have been different if the deportation had not been effected owing to delays attributable to the authorities. 53.  In so far as the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 (2) of the Constitution and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention were concerned, the Supreme Court distinguished the applicant’s situation from those in the cases he relied on and in which responsibility for the protracted detention lay with the authorities. Further, it held that it had not been shown that the continued detention of the applicant had been arbitrary, abusive and contrary to the Court’s case-law (see paragraph 50 above). 54.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (appellate jurisdiction) on 17 March 2011. 55.  The appeal was dismissed on 15 October 2012. The Supreme Court held that as the applicant had, in the meantime, been released, the application was without object. 56.  On Saturday, 12 June 2010, the applicant, along with forty-three other persons of Kurdish origin, submitted a Rule 39 request[5] in order to prevent their imminent deportation to Syria. 57.  On 14 June 2010 the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to Syria until the Court had had the opportunity to receive and examine all the documents pertaining to their claim. The parties were requested under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation. 58.  On 21 September 2010 the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule 39 in the light of information provided by the parties. He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of five applications, including the present one. Rule 39 was lifted with regard to the thirty-nine remaining cases. In seven of these cases the deportation and detention orders were annulled by the authorities. It appears that in at least three out of the seven cases proceedings were still pending with the Asylum Service or the Reviewing Authority. Those applicants subsequently withdrew the applications they had lodged with the Court. 59.  By a letter dated 11 May 2011, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant, by a decision dated 26 April 2011, had been recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Geneva Convention and had been released on 3 May 2011. 60.  On the basis of the above information, on 23 May 2011 the President of the First Section decided to lift the measure indicated under Rule 39.