CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90 October 2006 Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium - 13178/03 Judgment 12.10.2006 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Detention of a five-year-old child without her family in a centre for adults, followed by her deportation: violation Anxiety of a mother whose child was detained abroad and subsequently deported: violation   Extradition Conditions in which a five-year-old child was deported without her parents: violation   Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Detention of a five-year-old foreign national without her family in a centre for adult illegal immigrants: violation   Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Detention and deportation of five-year old child travelling alone to join her mother who had obtained refugee status in a different country: violation (for the mother and child)   Facts : The Belgian authorities apprehended a five-year-old child at Brussels airport who was travelling from the Democratic Republic of Congo with her uncle without the necessary travel papers. The purpose of the journey was for the child, whose father had disappeared, to rejoin her mother who had obtained refugee status in Canada. The child was detained in a transit centre for adults, and a decision was taken refusing her entry into Belgium and ordering her removal. The judge held that the child’s detention was incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ordered her immediate release. The following day the child was deported to the Democratic Republic of Congo. She was accompanied to the airport by a social worker and looked after in the plane by an in-flight attendant. No members of her family were waiting for her when she arrived. Law : Article 3 – The child’s detention : The child, unaccompanied by her parents, had been detained for two months in a centre intended for adults, with no counselling or educational assistance from a qualified person specially mandated for that purpose. The care provided to her had been insufficient to meet her needs. Owing to her very young age, the fact that she was an illegal alien in a foreign land and the fact that she was unaccompanied by her family, the child was in an extremely vulnerable situation. However, no specific legal framework existed governing the situation of unaccompanied alien minors. Although the authorities had been placed in a position to prevent or remedy the situation, they had failed to take adequate measures to discharge their obligation to take care of the child. Her detention demonstrated a lack of humanity and amounted to inhuman treatment. Conclusion : – violation in respect of the child (unanimously). Article 3 – Distress and anxiety of the mother as a result of her daughter’s detention : The only action taken by the Belgian authorities had been to inform the mother that her daughter had been detained and to provide her with a telephone number where she could be reached. Conclusion : violation in respect of the mother on account of her daughter’s detention (unanimously). Article 3 – The child’s deportation : The authorities had not taken steps to ensure that the child would be properly looked after before and during the flight or on her arrival, or had regard to the real situation she was likely to encounter on her return. Her removal amounted to inhuman treatment; in deporting her, the State had violated its positive obligation to take the requisite measures and precautions. The authorities had not troubled to advise the mother of her daughter’s deportation and she had learned of it only after the event. Conclusion : violation in respect of both applicants (unanimously). Article 8 – Both applicants had been subjected to disproportionate interference with their right to respect for their family life as a result of the child’s detention and the circumstances of her deportation. Conclusion : violation in respect of both applicants (unanimously). Article 5(1) – The child had been detained under a law which contained no provisions specific to minors, in a centre intended for adults and thus unsuited to her extremely vulnerable situation. Her right to liberty had not been adequately protected. Conclusion : violation in respect of the child (unanimously). Article 5(4) – The child had been deported without regard to the fact that she had lodged an application for release, which had been granted. The application had therefore been rendered ineffective. Conclusion : violation in respect of the child (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants EUR 35,000 for non-pecuniary damage. For further details see Press Release no. 582.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes