This case concerns 2 unaccompanied minor migrants interned in an overcrowded reception centre for adult migrants for 4 months. This constitutes a violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the ECHR.
Source: click here.
Key Words Archives: Type of alternative to detention
Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, Application No. 41442/07, Judgment of 19 January 2010
On 10/03/2023 in
This case concerns the detention of a mother and her four children (aged 7 months, three and a half years, five and seven years at the time of the events) for more than a month in a closed transit centre whose infrastructure was unsuitable for the reception of children. The Court found that this constitutes a violation of Article 3 for all the applicants and a violation of Article 5 para. 1 in respect of the four child applicants, while no violation of Article 5 para. 4 was found for any of the applicants.
Source: click here.
J.B. and Others v. Malta, Application no. 1766/23 (Decision on interim measures)
On 31/01/2023 in
Decision on interim measures ordering Malta to release child applicants to an accommodation with reception conditions that would be compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to their status as unaccompanied minors.
Source: PDF with the link
Communications No. 55/2018 E.B on behalf of E.H. et al. v. Belgium, 24 March 2022
On 20/12/2022 in
The CRC Committee found that the children’s detention in closed family detention centres violated the prohibition on ill-treatment (art. 37 CRC), read alone and in conjunction with the best-interests principle (art. 3 CRC). Belgium’s failure to consider alternatives to detention, including the option of allowing the families to remain in their own homes while they pursued appeals and other judicial remedies, was an element of the finding that Belgium had not taken the children’s best interests as a primary consideration.
Source of the standard:
A.M. v. The Principal Immigration Officer, 5 November 2021
On 20/12/2022 in
The applicant was a Bangladeshi national who was rejected from his asylum application and served with a removal order before he was referred for an age assessment procedure by the competent authorities and assessed as an adult following a bone test despite providing his birth certificate. He appealed this decision and challenged the results of the bone test as being inaccurate.
In the meantime, the appellant requested a review of his detention to be held in front of the Immigration Appeals Board and argued that the possibility to apply less coercive measures was never assessed in his case and that due consideration should be given to the fact that he is a minor assessed as an adult through an inaccurate procedure.
The Board noted the physical appearance suggesting the applicant is young and considered that there are sufficient grounds to believe that the appellant could be a minor and should therefore be released pending the result of the age assessment appeal. The Board considered that since this was an appeal on the removal order and not on a detention order, the appellant must file a request for bail if he wants to be released.
The Board upheld the request for bail subject to a care and custody order in favour of the appellant issued by the relevant authority. The person/guardian who will have care and custody of the appellant was to accompany the appellant to the Police station to sign every Friday from 7:00am – 7:00pm. The Board is also to be informed of the address as to where the appellant will be residing and must immediately inform the authorities if he goes missing. Additionally, the Board imposed a 1000 Euro deposit as a guarantee by the person who is going to have full care and custody.
However, the applicant was never released since his appointed representative (legal guardian) refused to act as the guarantor.
Source: PDF with the case
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals
On 07/09/2022 in
The “Return Directive”, with implementation deadline of 24 December 2010, sets up a common set of rules for the return of non-EU nationals who do not or who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence within the territory of any EU country, and the related procedural safeguards. It establishes a legal obligation for Member States to take due account of the best interests of the child (Article 5) and to use immigration detention of children and families only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time (Articles 15 and 17).
Source: official link