Fundamento destacado: 75. En su opinión, la situación de un individuo que solicita entrada y espera por un corto período para la verificación de su derecho a ingresar no podría describirse como una privación ilegal de la libertad imputable para el estado, ya que en tales casos las autoridades estatales han emprendido, frente a la persona, no hay otros pasos que reaccionar a su deseo de ingresar mediante la realización de las verificaciones necesarias. Los solicitantes habían afectado una entrada no autorizada en Malta y se consideró que los inmigrantes prohibidos en términos del Artículo 5 de la Ley de Inmigración (Capítulo 217 de las leyes de Malta) – «Por lo tanto, la excepción (f) sería aplicable como base legal».
[Traducido por LP]
75. In their view, the situation of an individual applying for entry and waiting for a short period for the verification of his or her right to enter could not be described as an illegal deprivation of liberty imputable to the State, since in such cases the State authorities have undertaken, vis-à-vis the individual, no other steps than reacting to his or her wish to enter by carrying out the necessary verifications. The applicants had affected an unauthorised entry into Malta and were considered to be prohibited immigrants in terms of Article 5 of the Immigration Act (Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta) – “so exception (f) would be applicable as a legal basis”.
[Idioma original]
CASE OF J.B. AND OTHERS v. MALTA
(Application no. 1766/23)
In the case of J.B. and Others v. Malta,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović,
Gediminas Sagatys, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 1766/23) against the Republic of Malta lodged with
the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Bangladeshi nationals (“the applicants”), indicated in the appended table, on 10 January 2023;
the decision to give notice to the Maltese Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 (conditions of detention) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);
the decision to indicate interim measures to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns various periods of detention of presumed minors and the effectiveness of remedies in relation to their detention and the conditions thereof.
[Continúa…]
