Four Somali asylum-seekers were held in the transit zone of Paris-Orly Airport for twenty days without adequate legal basis or judicial review before being returned to Syria. The European Court of Human Rights found France violated Article 5(1), establishing that holding asylum-seekers in transit zones constitutes deprivation of liberty requiring legal safeguards.
Facts
The four applicants, Somali nationals and siblings, arrived at Paris-Orly Airport on 9 March 1992 fleeing persecution in Somalia. Their passports were found to be falsified, and French authorities refused them entry to French territory. They were held in the airport’s transit zone, including accommodation at the Hôtel Arcade, for twenty days until 29 March 1992.
The applicants were not provided with legal or social assistance until 24 March when a humanitarian organisation contacted them. On 25 March, they applied for refugee status but were told the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) lacked jurisdiction as they had not obtained a temporary residence permit. On 29 March, they were returned to Syria before a court could rule on their application challenging the lawfulness of their detention.
The Domestic Proceedings
On 26 March, the applicants applied to the Créteil tribunal de grande instance seeking release from confinement. On 31 March, after the applicants had already been returned to Syria, the court ruled their detention was unlawful, stating:
“In French law as it stands at present, therefore, and whatever the factual circumstances surrounding the entry of the aliens concerned, the applicants must be considered to have been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; it follows that a flagrantly unlawful act is being committed which it is the duty of the urgent applications judge to bring to an end.”
Issues
The principal legal issues before the Court were:
1. Whether Article 5 was applicable
Was holding the applicants in the transit zone a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1)?
2. Whether any deprivation was lawful
If Article 5(1) applied, was the deprivation of liberty “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?
Judgment
Applicability of Article 5
The Court held that Article 5(1) was applicable. It distinguished between deprivation of liberty under Article 5 and mere restrictions on liberty of movement under Protocol 4, Article 2, stating:
“The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance.”
The Court rejected France’s argument that the applicants could have left voluntarily:
“The mere fact that it is possible for asylum-seekers to leave voluntarily the country where they wish to take refuge cannot exclude a restriction on liberty… Furthermore, this possibility becomes theoretical if no other country offering protection comparable to the protection they expect to find in the country where they are seeking asylum is inclined or prepared to take them in.”
The Court concluded:
“Holding the applicants in the transit zone of Paris-Orly Airport was equivalent in practice, in view of the restrictions suffered, to a deprivation of liberty.”
Lawfulness of the Deprivation
The Court examined whether French law provided adequate legal protection against arbitrary detention. It emphasised that the law must be sufficiently accessible and precise:
“Quality in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty – especially in respect of a foreign asylum-seeker – it must be sufficiently accessible and precise, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness.”
The Court found that neither the Decree of 27 May 1982 nor the unpublished circular of 26 June 1990 constituted a “law” of sufficient “quality”. These texts did not allow courts to review detention conditions, impose time limits, or provide for legal, humanitarian and social assistance with adequate procedures.
Implications
This judgment established important principles regarding the detention of asylum-seekers at international borders:
- Transit zones do not have extraterritorial status – persons held there remain subject to national law and Convention protections
- Prolonged holding in transit zones can constitute deprivation of liberty requiring Article 5 safeguards
- States must provide speedy judicial review of detention and access to legal assistance
- The theoretical possibility of voluntary departure does not negate a finding of deprivation of liberty
- Detention of asylum-seekers requires a clear, accessible legal basis with adequate safeguards against arbitrariness
The case influenced subsequent French legislation and remains a leading authority on the rights of asylum-seekers held at borders under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Verdict: The Court unanimously held that Article 5(1) of the Convention was applicable and had been breached. The finding of violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged prejudice. France was ordered to pay 57,000 French francs (less legal aid already received) for costs and expenses.
Source: Amuur v France (Application 19776/92) [1996] ECHR 25
Cite this work:
To cite this resource, please use the following reference:
National Case Law Archive, 'Amuur v France (Application 19776/92) [1996] ECHR 25' (LawCases.net, January 2026) <https://www.lawcases.net/cases/amuur-v-france-application-19776-92-1996-echr-25/> accessed 1 May 2026
