The ECtHR reiterated that deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 (f) is justified only as long as deportation proceedings take place. It follows that, if these proceedings are not followed diligently, the detention will cease to be justified in accordance with this paragraph16.  Ozdil and others v. Republic of Moldova, 42305/18, 11.06.2019. The plaintiffs were teachers in a network of private schools in Moldova, called Orizont, which has been active since 1993. On the morning of 6 September 2018, the applicants were arrested at their home or on their way to work, and taken to an unknown direction by people wearing civilian clothes. Later, the Moldovan Intelligence and Security Service made several statements regarding a large-scale counterterrorism operation that took place that day, during which seven foreign nationals suspected of links to an Islamist organization were arrested and removed from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, in collaboration with the secret services of other countries. The ECtHR reiterated that while the investigation of terrorist offenses is undoubtedly the responsibility of authorities with special missions, this does not mean that the authorities have full freedom of action under Article 5 to arrest suspects and detain them in police institutions without effective control by national courts and, for example, by the supervisory institutions of the Convention, whenever they consider that a terrorist offense has taken place. 7.3. Article 8 „Right to respect for private and family life”  Kaya v. Romania, 33.970/05, 12.10.2006 At the time, the plaintiff had lived in Romania for more than 5 years. In 2003, the plaintiff married a Romanian citizen. On 18 April 2005, he was arrested by border police and the foreigners' authority. On this occasion, a report was drawn up by 3 border police officers. On the same day, the plaintiff was taken by the police to the foreigners' authority in Bucharest. The next day, the plaintiff was deported to Turkey. In the present case, by an order of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the plaintiff was declared undesirable in Romania, was barred from residence for a period of 15 years and was expelled on the grounds that the Romanian Intelligence Service had "sufficient and serious information that he was conducting activities likely to endanger national security”. The Court found that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the plaintiff on the ground that he had participated in the commission of an offense in Romania or in another country. Except for the general reason mentioned above, the authorities did not provide the plaintiff with any further details. The Court recalled that any person against whom a measure is taken on grounds of national security must enjoy safeguards against arbitrariness. In particular, the person must be able to initiate a review of the contested measure by an independent and impartial body, competent to rule on all relevant matters of fact and law, in order to establish the legality of the measure and to sanction any 16 See, mutatis mutandis, Quinn v. France, 22.03.1995, § 48, A no. 311 60