The Polish authorities had failed to assess the impact of the detention on the family and the children in particular, not fulfilled their obligation to consider the family’s detention as a measure of last resort and had not considered alternative measures. Child detention is permitted for the shortest amount of time and only if the detention conditions are appropriate and less coercive measures are not available.
Source: official link
Immigration detention of a child is permitted for the shortest amount of time and only if the detention conditions are appropriate and less coercive measures are not available.
Source: official link
Compulsory, indefinite placement of migrants in the transit zones qualifies as detention and is unlawful.
Source: official link
The asylum authorities had detained an unaccompanied asylum seeking child on the ground that it was in the interest of his own safety as he had taken part in fights with other asylum seekers at the reception centre. However, the court repealed the detention order highlighting that detention should be a measure of last resort. The court noted that the child had not been heard during the administrative procedure and neither his legal representative, nor a social worker had taken part in the procedure.
Source: PDF with the case
The appellant is a Bangladeshi national who was rescued and disembarked in Malta in December 2021. He was directly detained upon arrival and later declared that he is a minor during the lodging of his asylum application and was referred for the age assessment procedure. He was still in an age assessment procedure with no final decision when he filed an appeal against his detention order but was later assessed to be an adult by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS). This initial decision was appealed in front of the same Board.
The Board noted that the case was initially to be heard before Immigration Appeals Board, Division I, but that a conflict of interest was registered by the Board due to the role of one of its members in the Minors Care Review Board.
The appellant’s representative questioned whether there was a similar conflict of interest before Division II given that the same Board also decides the Age Assessment Appeals. The Board advised the appellant that an objection should be registered if the appellant’s representative felt that Division II had a conflict of interest to hear both cases. The appellant’s representative declared that he wished to proceed with the hearing as this would delay the detention of the appellant
The appellant declared that he should be presumed a minor until a final decision is taken on his age and complained that his detention was not in accordance with Article 14(1) of S.L. 420.06 since it is not a measure of last resort.
The Board relied on the fact that the appellant rectified his date of birth during the asylum procedure to deem the detention to be lawful. However, the Board decided that until the Age Assessment Appeal is decided, the appellant is to be transferred to the Buffer Zone within the AWAS Open Centre under those conditions that are considered appropriate and necessary by AWAS.
Source: PDF with the case
The appellant is a Bangladeshi national who was rescued and disembarked in Malta in December 2021. He was directly detained upon arrival and later declared that he is minor during the lodging of his asylum application and was referred for the age assessment procedure. He was still in an age assessment procedure with no final decision when he filed an appeal against his detention order.
The Board registered a conflict of interest due to the role of one of its members in the Minors Care Review Board and the case was set to be heard the next week before Division II.
However, the Board still noted that there was a claim that the appellant was a minor and therefore referred to the proviso of Article 14(1) of S.L. 420.06 which states that applicants who claim to be minors shall not be detained, except as a measure of last resort, unless the claim is evidently and manifestly unfounded and directed the PIO to act according to such proviso. The Board then ordered that the age assessment procedure is to be done as soon as possible.
The case was not heard in front of Division II since the appellant was released before the hearing after he was assessed as a minor by AWAS.
Source: PDF with the case
