Cyprus court denies bail to Congolese man who entered the country illegally and refused to leave

The Cyprus Supreme Court has upheld the detention of a Congolese national who challenged his imprisonment, ruling that authorities acted properly and that he remains detained due to his own actions.

The man, who has no passport, no permanent residence and did not comply with return decisions, had requested his release because he had been detained for a long period.

The man arrived in Cyprus illegally through north Cyprus and submitted an asylum application on 22 July 2022 after crossing to the south Cyprus. The application was withdrawn on 12 November 2024 due to tacit abandonment.

He was later located in Paphos and arrested. After re-examination of his application, he was re-arrested on 12 May 2025 and has been detained since then. He applied to the Supreme Court for a certiorari order for his release.

The Supreme Court ruled his detention was necessary based on the risk of absconding.

The court cited several factors: he did not comply with previous return decisions, including an asylum rejection dated 29 November 2024 and a deportation order dated 12 February 2025; he has no residence address; no valid travel document was found; and he declared no intention to comply with the return decision.

He was considered a prohibited migrant under article 6(1)(k) of Cap. 105, arrested, and issued with detention and deportation orders on 12 February 2025.

He is detained for repatriation, and his international protection application was submitted to obstruct the repatriation procedure, according to the court.

The court found that all re-evaluation actions had been taken in his case, and, combined with the total time under detention since the first detention order on 12 February 2025, this does not demonstrate negligence and inaction by the authorities.

Given the applicant’s exercise of his right to submit an appeal, which obstructs the return procedure, the authorities continue to wish to proceed with the return procedure and examine at regular intervals whether alternative measures exist or whether further detention is justified.

According to the decision, with each evaluation done according to the law, the reasons for justified detention continue to apply. These reasons include his own behaviour and situation: no permanent address, no passport and no intention to return.

The time period under detention is not such that it should be considered illegal, especially as the total detention period does not exceed 12 months.

The Supreme Court concluded that it has not been demonstrated at this stage that his detention has become illegal.