which may immediately detain people seeking asylum, the EU asylum acquis foregrounds the freedom of movement for people seeking international protection. The Directive then provides how this fundamental freedom of movement could be restricted to an assigned area or particular place of "residence".[13] To be deprived, as opposed to restricted, of this freedom of movement would amount to detention. The RCD defines ‘detention’ as the confinement of an applicant for international protection who is "deprived of his or her freedom of movement".[14] For the purpose of interpreting this terminology in accordance with the CFR, the CJEU considers detention a limitation of the Article 6 fundamental right to liberty.[15] This corresponds with the rights guaranteed by Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, on the right to liberty and security of person. This is important for eliciting what amounts to a restriction—to a specific area or residence—as opposed to deprivation of liberty as detention. To determine whether a person has been 'deprived of their liberty' within the meaning of Article 5, in Austin and Others v the United Kingdom the Grand Chamber reaffirmed the distinction as "one of degree or intensity, and not of nature and substance".[16] Moreover, the starting point for considering whether a person has been deprived of their liberty must be the concrete situation and then the type, duration, effects and manner of the measure cumulatively.[17] According to the RCD, the only clear "bottom-line" for restrictions on movement is the "unalienable sphere of private life" and that "access to all benefits under this Directive" should be guaranteed.[18] Benefits are to be interpreted as not only the material reception conditions but all rights granted in the reception conditions framework, such as access to health care, education and work.[19] [13] Ibid. Articles 7(1) and 7(2). [14] Ibid. Article 2(h). [15] J. N. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie [2016] CJEU (Case C-601/15). [16] Austin and Others v the United Kingdom (GC) [2012] ECHR (Applications nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09) para 57; the relevant principles on deprivation of liberty were previously set out in the ECtHR decisions of Engel and Others v the Netherlands (1976) ECHR 3 and Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. [17] Ibid. [18] Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). Article 7(1). [19] Peek and Tsourdi. 2016. Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection in EU Immigration and Asylum Law Commentary, Hailbronner K & Thym, D (eds), Beck/Hart/Nomos, 1409. Page 8