CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s76929361 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E304268 { width:190.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF D.L. v. BULGARIA   (Application no. 7472/14)           JUDGMENT (Extracts)       STRASBOURG   19 May 2016     FINAL   17/10/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of D.L. v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President ,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   André Potocki,   Yonko Grozev,   Síofra O’Leary,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges , and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 19 April 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 7472/14) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, D.L. (“the applicant”), on 16   January 2014. The application was received at the Court on 22 January 2014. The Court decided of its own motion to grant the applicant anonymity (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms D.N. Fartunova, a lawyer and member of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (a non-governmental organisation based in Sofia). The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant alleged that her placement in a correctional boarding school ( възпитателно училище – интернат ) had been in breach of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention and that she had been unable to have it reviewed by a court at regular intervals in accordance with Article 5 §   4 of the Convention. She also complained, under Article 8, of the automatic monitoring of her correspondence and telephone calls at the correctional boarding school in which she had been placed. 4.     On 17 November 2014 the Government were given notice of the application. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1999 and lives in Pleven. A.     The applicant’s placement in a correctional boarding school 6.     On 2 August 2012 the applicant, aged 13, was admitted to the Open Door children’s crisis centre in Pleven. Her placement was ordered as a protective measure under the Child Protection Act by the Pleven municipal director of social assistance, at the request of the applicant’s mother, who had claimed to be unable to look after her daughter. 7.     In a decision of 1 October 2012 a criminal bench of the Pleven District Court ( Районен съд ) confirmed the applicant’s placement and extended its validity for a further three months. In its reasoning the court found that the conditions for the placement of a minor in a specialist institution were satisfied, namely that the child’s parents were unable to provide her with adequate care and that she was living in a dangerous social environment, as she associated with “men identified as delinquents”. Lastly, it stated that no member of the applicant’s family was able to take on responsibility for her upbringing. 8.     On 16 January 2013, finding that the conditions for the applicant’s return to her family environment were not satisfied, the municipal director of social assistance ordered the extension of her placement in the centre. On 1 April 2013 a civil bench of the District Court in turn confirmed the measure and extended it for a further six months. 9.     On 3 April 2013 the local committee for combating juvenile antisocial behaviour (“the local committee”) asked the District Court to order the applicant’s placement in a correctional boarding school. On 19 April 2013 a criminal bench of the District Court held a hearing, following which it gave a decision imposing a less severe educational measure on the applicant, namely “a ban on meeting and making contact with certain individuals”. In its reasoning the court specified that placement in a correctional boarding school was liable to have a negative impact on the child’s psychological and social development, given the “unfavourable environment offered by that type of institution”. It added that following the expiry of her placement in the Open Door centre, it would be appropriate to admit the applicant to another institution regulated by the Child Protection Act in order to keep her away from the people who had forced her into prostitution. 10.     On 17 May 2013 the local committee sent the District Court a new proposal for the applicant’s admission to a correctional boarding school under the Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour Prevention Act. It argued that the applicant did not have a favourable family environment and that, in particular, her father was serving a prison sentence and her mother had trouble assuming her parental responsibilities. This had caused the applicant to run away from home and develop a circle of friends including both adults and juveniles who were identified as “delinquents” and had allegedly incited her to engage in immoral conduct, such as the provision of “sexual services”. Lastly, the local committee noted that the applicant had also run away twice from the children’s crisis centre and had behaved aggressively towards the staff. 11.     On 10 June 2013 a criminal bench of the District Court held a hearing. The applicant’s mother was present, having been summoned to appear at the hearings, and asked to have a lawyer officially appointed to represent her daughter in the proceedings. The applicant also asked to have a lawyer appointed. The court granted their request. It heard evidence from the applicant, her officially appointed lawyer, a representative of the local committee, an inspector from the child protection team ( Детска педагогическа стая ), a representative of the district prosecutor’s office, a representative of the municipal child protection department and two social workers from the children’s crisis centre where the applicant was living. The inspector from the child protection team stated that the applicant engaged in prostitution and had been found offering prostitution services on a motorway near Devnia, some 270 km from her home town. The two social workers from the children’s crisis centre pointed out that that factor had served as a ground for placing her in the centre as a protective measure for a child at risk. They added that after her admission to the centre, the child had remained in contact with the people who had incited her to engage in prostitution despite the steps that had been taken to protect her. In the social workers’ opinion, the applicant’s family environment was unsuitable for her. She came from a large family where the mother did not exert any parental control . The mother did not have a job and her partner drank and was violent towards her and her children. The mother had also stayed at the children’s crisis centre with two of her other children. After intensive psychological and social counselling, a positive development had been noted in the applicant and there were plans to find different accommodation arrangements for her. However, the social workers added that by the time of the hearing the applicant’s situation had worsened as she did not follow the rules in place, came back late from school or was brought back by the police when she failed to return, and continued to associate with individuals known to the police, to engage in sexual relations and to behave aggressively towards the staff. She had attended a series of talks on prevention of “lover boy”-type human trafficking but had not been receptive to the protective measures recommended.   The social workers expressed the opinion that the applicant faced a strong risk of being driven into prostitution and that the arrangements in place at the crisis centre did not afford her the necessary protection. In their view, such protection would only be provided in a secure centre with a restrictive regime. Lastly, the representative of the local committee stated that four educational measures had already been imposed on the applicant, including strict monitoring by a supervisor, the ban on associating with certain individuals and the warning recommending placement in a correctional boarding school. He viewed those measures as insufficient. 12.     The court also obtained welfare reports. The applicant stated that she did not wish to be admitted to a correctional boarding school and preferred to remain in the children’s crisis centre. The officially appointed lawyer called for the adoption of less severe educational measures. The representatives of the district prosecutor’s office and of the municipal child protection department supported the proposal by the local committee. The representative of the municipal child protection department stated that during the hearing all the safeguards laid down in the Child Protection Act had been observed. In his opinion, the possibilities for the child’s upbringing in the crisis centre had been exhausted, the risk of her renewed involvement in human trafficking was very high and she was unaware of this. Accordingly, the measure of placement in a correctional boarding school was in fact in her interests. 13.     Later on 10 June 2013 the District Court gave a judgment ordering the applicant’s placement in the correctional boarding school in Podem (“the Podem school”), a village 20 kilometres away from Pleven. In its reasoning the court held that despite the judicial decision of 1 April 2013 in which a compromise solution had been adopted for the applicant, namely the confirmation and extension of her placement in the children’s crisis centre, she was still failing to abide by the institution’s internal rules, was not returning to the centre by the designated time after school, was in contact with individuals identified as “delinquents” and was still behaving rudely and aggressively towards the social workers at the centre. It noted that, in the absence of adequate parental control, the applicant had developed serious antisocial habits and that her placement in a children’s crisis centre no longer had the intended educational and preventive effect on her behaviour. In the court’s view, the applicant no longer displayed any willingness to abide by the rules of society, or even those of the institution in which she was living, and it was therefore advisable to remove her from her circle of acquaintances who were harming her personal development, and to provide her with enhanced educational support in order to eradicate her negative behavioural traits. The court noted that educational measures had already been imposed on her, but they had not produced a positive result. It concluded that the measure of admission to a correctional boarding school was necessary not only for her own benefit but in the interests of society. 14.     The applicant, represented by her lawyer, appealed against that judgment. She challenged the measure imposed on her, arguing in particular that the court had not specified its duration, that her mother had not been given a hearing by the first-instance court and that she herself had not committed any criminal acts. 15.     In a final judgment of 16 July 2013 a criminal bench of the Pleven Regional Court upheld the first-instance court’s decision. In its reasoning it held that the law did not oblige the court to hear evidence from the parents ­ – in this instance the applicant’s mother ­ – and that the applicant’s other complaints were unsubstantiated and ill-founded. 16.     On 13 September 2013 the applicant attempted to commit suicide and was admitted to the toxicology department of Pleven Hospital. According to a medical certificate dated 15 September 2013, she had taken ten 500 mg paracetamol tablets and ten Remotiv tablets and was in a fragile state. After her stomach was pumped, the effects of the intoxication were brought under control. 17.     On 15 September 2013 the applicant was taken to the Podem school. She was still there at the time of the most recent information submitted to the Court, on 11 June 2015. 18.     Regarding life at the school, the applicant submitted in her application that the level of teaching was much lower than at her previous institution. In the four years prior to her application, only six pupils had obtained the secondary-school leaving certificate, and none at all in 2011 or 2012. Three pupils had been awarded the certificate in 2013 with an overall average mark of 3.67 out of 6, the minimum pass mark being 3. The applicant added that in 2012 and 2013 the pedagogical council had not given any positive assessments of pupils’ behaviour or school results, meaning that no proposals for the end of a placement had been submitted to the District Court. 19.     The applicant also asserted that she had continued to be threatened with forced prostitution by her former contacts after being admitted to the Podem school. On 19 November 2013 she had attempted suicide for the second time, as part of a group with four other girls, by ingesting chemical substances. She had then been taken to hospital for three days. There had been other suicide attempts at the school. 20.     The applicant further submitted that her telephone conversations were monitored by a supervisor. For that purpose, a loudspeaker had been attached to the telephone and switched on during each conversation. 21.     In addition, because of the significant number of violent incidents at correctional boarding schools, the prosecutor’s office on 7 November 2013 ordered an inspection of all secure educational institutions, including the Podem school. The results of the inspection are not known. B.     Report by the head of the Podem correctional boarding school 22.     When submitting their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, the Government included a report dated 30 January 2015 by the head of the Podem school about the applicant’s situation. According to the report, during her previous placement in the Open Door centre, the applicant had been aggressive towards the staff, had encouraged other girls to engage in prostitution and had run away on two occasions (4 and 27   February 2013). The report also stated that she had unashamedly admitted to having been sexually active since the age of 12 and that she provided “sexual services” in return for payment. 23.     The report mentioned, in addition, that the applicant did not have a favourable family background and that she was left unsupervised, which explained why she had previously run away and led a vagrant lifestyle. 24.     According to the report, the Podem school offered an educational environment with experts qualified to work as teachers or supervisors in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Education and Science. The school curriculum and the courses followed in all specific subjects had been developed and approved in line with the Ministry’s standard procedures. The applicant had been deficient in many areas and the teachers had worked with her on a one-to-one basis as well as during lessons. 25.     The file does not include a copy of the individual development plan that was supposed to have been drawn up at the time of the applicant’s admission to the school and updated every six months. However, according to the report, the plan indicated that she was unaware of the risks she ran on account of her “erratic sexual relations”, that she did not question the consequences of such acts and that she was not ready to live independently. It added that she was naïve, easy to manipulate, impulsive, emotionally fragile and prone to dishonesty. 26.     The report went on to state that the individual plan as updated on 29   September 2014 noted a positive change in the child’s behaviour. Although she did not apply herself consistently, she had nevertheless shown some interest in schoolwork. The individual plan had recommended that she step up her efforts to acquire knowledge on an ongoing, in-depth basis. 27.     The report also noted that at the end of the 2013/14 school year, the applicant had achieved an average mark of 3.69 out of 6 and had therefore moved up to the next class, that she had also been awarded a certificate as a qualified seamstress and that she would be receiving a similar mark for the first semester of the 2014/15 school year. 28.     With regard to the applicant’s telephone conversations, the report explained the applicable rules and stated that she had not been “deprived of telephone contact with her mother” or subjected to any restrictions on visits from her family, even though these had often taken place outside the times specified in the school’s internal rules. In addition, the applicant had never received any letters or parcels from her family. She had gone on home leave five times during the school holidays, from 21   December 2013 to 5 January 2014, from 30 January to 4 February 2014, from 28   March to 6 April 2014, from 4 July to 15 September 2014, and from 19   December 2014 to 4 January 2015. Each time, the applicant had returned late to the Podem school. 29.     The report also stated that according to information from the police, the child had been suspected of stealing a mobile phone and jewels from a house on 4 January 2014. On being questioned by the police, she had handed over the items in question of her own accord. 30.     Lastly, the report noted that the school’s committee on preventing the risks of assault and harassment of juveniles had not received any information to suggest that the applicant had been “sexually exploited” within the school itself. C.     Reports by the State Agency for Child Protection and Action Plan for the implementation of the national policy strategy on juvenile justice for 2013-2020 31.     Two reports issued in 2009 and 2013 by the State Agency for Child Protection include a summary of the findings of an assessment of the operation of the four correctional boarding schools in Bulgaria, including the one in Podem. They indicate that these schools had a total capacity of 405 places and that in 2013 there were 166 children attending them. There were 44 girls at the Podem school, all of whom had been admitted under the Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour Act. 32.     The reports also note that there is a high pupil turnover rate during the school year because of the admission of juveniles on the basis of a placement order and because of their departure, in most cases on reaching the age of majority (18 years of age) or on the expiry of the statutory maximum duration of the placement. During   2009, twenty children ran away from the schools and eight left them following a positive annual assessment by the pedagogical council. During 2012/13, fewer than four children had a positive assessment and were therefore able to leave the correctional boarding schools. During the 2013/14 school year, there were no instances of children leaving the schools following a positive assessment. As regards the results achieved across all secure educational institutions in Bulgaria, the reports indicate that in 2009, 10% of pupils were awarded a vocational qualification, 35% successfully completed their secondary education up to the age of 14 and 3% successfully completed their secondary education up to the age of 18. The remaining 52% of pupils failed to complete their education. The 2013 report mentions a low success rate among pupils, with average marks of between 3 and 4 out of 6. According to the reports, these figures point to a problem as to the effectiveness of educational and rehabilitative measures, and even raise questions as to whether “such measures exist in practice”. 33.     The reports further state that, in accordance with the applicable legislation, each correctional boarding school has a team responsible for educational and psychological assessment of pupils and a team of supervisors responsible for educational and rehabilitative support. The teams draw up annual individual plans for pupils, which in most cases are set out in a standardised form. Objectives relating to learning, education and development are general in nature and do not include any specific activities tailored to the individual needs, abilities, age and interests of the children concerned. The 2013 report is particularly critical of the prevalence of serious incidents involving suicide attempts or assaults on other pupils, and deplores the fact that no provision is made for follow-up action in the individual plans of the pupils concerned so that consideration can be given to the reasons for their actions and to their psychological state. 34.     In addition, the reports note that the staff of the institutions concerned have undergone training covering matters such as alternative education methods for children in difficulty, development of their potential for autonomy and catering for individual needs. With regard to the Podem school in particular, the teaching and support staff are subject to external educational supervision. The reports nevertheless conclude that the number of people employed to run extracurricular activities is insufficient, although the children’s wide-ranging needs and their vulnerability suggest that educational activities should be arranged in small groups. They also criticise the lack of any programme to foster closer relations between children and their families. 35.     Two types of problems are highlighted. The first type concerns the school curriculum and the second concerns the programme for social integration and rehabilitation. 36.     Regarding schoolwork, the reports note, among other things, that illiteracy levels are a cause for concern, particularly as children of a wide range of ages and abilities are grouped together in the same class. A large number of pupils are unable to read or write on their arrival at the schools, and the curricula taught do not allow them to redress their shortcomings and make progress. Furthermore, many children with behavioural difficulties also encounter problems at school and the development of their ability for effective learning and independent work is impaired. These children often run away, do not attend lessons regularly and have insufficient contact with adults . 37.     As far as the programme for social integration and rehabilitation is concerned, the reports state that, in addition to staff shortages, the existing groups of more than seven or eight children in difficulty cannot be effectively supervised, the activities on offer do not follow an appropriate methodology for vulnerable children, and no arrangements are made at the institutions to encourage contact between the children and their families, a shortcoming identified as a cause of aggressive behaviour. 38.     Lastly, the 2009 report recommends in particular: ( a)   a general reform of the status of the institutions in question and of their operation, through the inclusion of alternative educational and preventive methods; (b)   the introduction and development of units for preventing deviant behaviour, and their involvement as soon as children display the first signs of such behaviour; (c)   shorter placements, with more emphasis on social rehabilitation and psychological support for children than on teaching; (d)   returning the children in question to the ordinary school system, including in schools in their home area, rather than keeping them apart in specialist institutions, through an intensive individual integration scheme managed by teams of educational experts; ( e)   the introduction of programmes allowing young people to acquire vocational skills; (f)   instilling an atmosphere of cooperation with families; (g)   a reform whereby local committees for combating juvenile antisocial behaviour would no longer have a decisive role in taking educational measures and such decisions would be taken by a specialist judge alone; ( h)   abolition of punishments for juvenile antisocial behaviour; ( i)   abolition of criminal penalties for children under 14 years of age and their replacement by exclusively social and protective measures, applicable only in exceptional cases; (j)   admitting children under 14 years of age to specialist institutions only where there is a social need or a need for protection; and (k)   closure of the institutions in question, subject to the introduction of alternative protective and judicial measures in legislation and practice. 39.     It appears that, following the 2009 report by the State Agency for Child Protection, the Ministry of Education and Science undertook to reform the secure institutions for juveniles in order to ensure that the system was entirely focused on the child and offered an individually tailored approach. Measures were subsequently put forward in an action plan for the implementation of the national policy strategy on juvenile justice for   2013-2020. Among the measures envisaged were: the repeal of the Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour Act and the introduction of a new Juvenile Justice Act for children in conflict with the law, with the aim of offering a wide range of social, educational and learning services to children in difficulty. ... THE LAW 59.     The applicant complained that her placement in a correctional boarding school had not been in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that she had been unable to have that measure reviewed by a court at regular intervals, as provided for by Article 5 §   4. She added that the automatic monitoring of her correspondence and telephone calls at the correctional boarding school in which she had been placed was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. ... II.     MERITS A.     Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention 64.     The applicant alleged that her placement in a correctional boarding school infringed Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a)     the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; ... (d)     the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; ...” 1.     The parties’ submissions 65.     The applicant submitted that, in view of the living conditions at the Podem school and her admission to the school against her and her mother’s wishes, the measure in question amounted to deprivation of liberty. 66.     Next, she contended that the Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour Act was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable as to its application. Neither the Act nor the domestic case-law defined the term “antisocial behaviour” ... sufficiently precisely for her to have been able to foresee that her behaviour would result in her being deprived of her liberty. She also disputed the authorities’ finding that she had committed acts falling within the scope of this legislation; in her view, her situation was more that of a child at risk who required protective measures. Furthermore, the Act did not give a clear indication of the order in which educational measures were to be applied or of the educational institution that would be the most suitable in view of her alleged acts. In addition, her admission to the Podem school had not been ordered as a last resort. 67.     The applicant submitted that she had been subjected to a criminal sanction and that her deprivation of liberty could therefore, on the face of it, be treated in the same way as the situation covered by Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Since, in her submission, her deprivation of liberty had not been effected in accordance with the applicable criminal procedure, it had to be regarded as breaching that provision of the Convention. Nor was her placement in the school compatible with Article 5 §   1 (d) of the Convention, seeing that she had not had access to a system offering adequate education and support at the Podem school and had not been properly protected against the exploitation to which she had previously fallen victim and which had formed the basis for her placement in the school. 68.     The Government did not dispute that the impugned measure amounted to a deprivation of liberty. Ruling out the applicability of Article   5 § 1 (a), they contended that the measure in issue corresponded to the situation contemplated in Article 5 § 1 (d). They gave a detailed account of the system of support and education offered at the Podem school. They added that the decision to admit the applicant to the school had been taken in the context of adversarial judicial proceedings that had included an examination of the factual circumstances and that her behaviour had been found to be antisocial under the applicable legislation. The measure had also been justified by the need to correct the applicant’s behaviour through education and to remove her from an unfavourable social environment. The most severe educational measure, namely placement in a secure institution, had been chosen because of the failure of other, less restrictive measures that had previously been imposed on the applicant. 2.     The Court’s assessment 69.     The Court notes at the outset that the Government did not dispute that the applicant’s placement in the Podem school amounted to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention. In any event, it notes that it has already examined a similar placement in the institution in question and concluded that such a measure had deprived the children concerned of their liberty, considering in particular the system of permanent supervision, the need for permission in order to leave the premises and the duration of the placement (see A.   and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 51776/08, §§   62-63, 29 November 2011). Since this system remains unchanged, the Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case and concludes that the applicant’s placement in the school likewise amounted to deprivation of liberty. 70.     The applicant contended that her placement did not fall within any of the situations contemplated in Article 5 § 1, in particular those covered by sub-paragraphs (a) and (d). The Government, for their part, submitted that Article 5 § 1 (a) was not applicable in the present case, but that the measure complained of was in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (d). As a result, and bearing in mind that that provision was applied in relation to the placement considered in the case of A. and Others v. Bulgaria (cited above), the Court will focus firstly on whether the applicant’s placement in the Podem school was in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (d). 71.     It observes in this connection that the first part of Article 5 § 1 (d) provides for deprivation of liberty in a minor’s own interests regardless of whether the minor is suspected of having committed a criminal offence or is simply a child “at risk”. It allows for the detention of a minor where this has been ordered for the purpose of educational supervision (see A. and Others v. Bulgaria , cited above, § 66). Since the applicant did not reach the age of majority during the application of the measure in issue, the only question for the Court is whether her detention was lawful and was ordered “for the purpose” of her educational supervision (see Bouamar v. Belgium , 29   February 1988, §   50, Series A no. 129; D.G. v. Ireland , no. 39474/98, §   76, ECHR   2002-III; and, more recently, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no.   47152/06, §§   166-67, ECHR 2016). The Convention here refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to its substantive and procedural rules, but it also requires that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Bouamar , cited above, § 47, and D.G. v. Ireland , cited above, § 75). In addition, there must be a relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention (see D.G. v. Ireland , cited above, §   75, and Aerts v. Belgium , 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V, with further references). 72.     It appears that the decision in the present case to admit the applicant to the school was taken in accordance with the Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour Act. The applicant argued in that connection that the concept of “antisocial behaviour” was not sufficiently clear to meet the Convention requirement of “quality” of the law, thus preventing her from being able to foresee the precise grounds on which she might be placed in a secure facility against her will. The Court’s task is therefore to determine whether the domestic legal provisions in question were sufficiently accessible and precise in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness in relation to deprivation of liberty (see Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium , no.   13178/03, § 97, ECHR 2006-XI, and A. and Others v. Bulgaria , cited above, §   67). 73.     The Court is able to observe from the evidence before it that the domestic authorities justified the need to place the applicant in the school by referring to the risk of her being driven into prostitution, as she had been incited to perform “sexual services”, and also to her lack of cooperation, her aggressive behaviour and her repeated attempts to run away (see paragraphs 10-13 above). It is undeniable that the Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour Act appears somewhat obsolete (see paragraph 76 below) and does not include an exhaustive list of the acts deemed to be “antisocial”, which is why it does not explicitly refer to the acts which the applicant was said to have committed. The Act in question simply provides a general definition of the concept of “antisocial behaviour” ... However, the Court refers to its finding in A. and Others v. Bulgaria (cited above) that, according to established judicial practice, prostitution and absconding are regarded as antisocial acts that may give rise to educational measures, including placement in a specialist institution (ibid., § 68 ...). It therefore considers that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of her actions, and that in the circumstances of the case, a “procedure prescribed by law” was observed. 74.     ”Lawfulness” also implies that the deprivation of liberty is in keeping with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 § 1 (d). It is the Court’s task to ascertain whether the applicant’s placement was such as to provide for her “educational supervision” (see Bouamar , cited above, §   50, and Blokhin , cited above, §§ 166-67). Once the State had chosen to introduce a system of educational supervision involving deprivation of liberty, it was under an obligation to put in place appropriate institutional facilities which met the demands of security and the relevant educational objectives, in order to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (d) (see Bouamar , cited above, § 50; D.G. v. Ireland , cited above, § 79; and Blokhin , cited above, § 167). It is also accepted that, in the context of the detention of minors, the words “educational supervision” must not be equated rigidly with notions of classroom teaching: in the context of a young person in local authority care, educational supervision must embrace many aspects of the exercise, by the local authority, of parental rights for the benefit and protection of the person concerned (see Koniarska v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33670/96, 12   October 2000; D.G. v. Ireland , cited above, § 80; A. and Others v.   Bulgaria , cited above, § 69; and P. and S. v. Poland , no. 57375/08, § 147, 30 October 2012). The Court has recently had the opportunity to point out that schooling in line with the normal school curriculum should be standard practice for all minors deprived of their liberty and placed under the State’s responsibility, even when they are placed in a temporary detention centre for a limited period of time, in order to avoid gaps in their education (see Blokhin , cited above, § 170). The Court finds it necessary to add in the present case that, as with the cases of detention provided for in Article 5 § 1 (b) and (e), the requirement of “lawfulness” in the context of detention “for the purpose of educational supervision” also implies the duty to ensure that the measure taken was proportionate to those aims (see, mutatis mutandis , Vasileva v. Denmark , no. 52792/99, §§ 37-42, 25 September 2003, and Enhorn v. Sweden , no. 56529/00, §§ 41 et seq., ECHR 2005-I). Where the detention concerns a minor, as in the present case, the Court considers, in the light of the relevant international standards, that an essential criterion for the assessment of proportionality is whether the detention was ordered as a last resort, in the child’s best interests, and was aimed at preventing serious risks for the child’s development. When this criterion is no longer fulfilled, the basis for the deprivation of liberty ceases to exist. 75.     In the present case, the applicant alleged that the authorities’ decision to place her in the school had not been taken for educational purposes but as a punishment, that the system for teaching and support at the Podem school did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (d) of the Convention and that the choice of the measure had been arbitrary. 76.     The Court observes, moreover, that the material before it includes criticisms of various aspects of the Bulgarian system for accommodating children in difficulty within the network of social institutions. It notes firstly that the Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour Act is undeniably obsolete and that, for historical reasons, it is based more on a philosophy of “punishing” than “protecting” children, a fact that has attracted criticism from international and national organisations (see paragraphs 39 ... above). Furthermore, when examining the first application by the local committee for the applicant’s placement, the court found that the Podem school was an “unfavourable environment” (see paragraph 9 above). Subsequently, the State Agency for Child Protection and the Ombudsman both indicated their concerns as to the appropriateness of judicial proceedings concerning minors, the implementation of educational and support programmes, and the physical living conditions in the secure institutions for juveniles (see paragraphs 31-38 ... above). On this point, the Court is compelled to note that a national reform, encompassing wide-ranging legislative and administrative measures and encouraged by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, is currently being planned (see paragraphs 39 ... above). It also takes the view that its task is not to conduct an abstract examination, from the standpoint of the Convention, of the Bulgarian system of educational measures for minors, but to review the manner in which the existing system was applied in this specific case (see Deweer v.   Belgium , 27 February 1980, §   40, Series A no. 35; Schiesser v.   Switzerland , 4   December 1979, § 32, Series A no. 34; and A. and Others v.   Bulgaria , cited above, §   70). 77.     As to the aim of the measure and the operation of the educational and support system, the Court considers that the State should be afforded a certain margin of appreciation in organising the system in such a way as to make it effective. In the present case it observes, despite the criticisms levelled in general (see paragraph 76 above), that the applicant was able to follow a school curriculum, that individual efforts were made to alleviate her learning difficulties, that she achieved a mark allowing her to move up to the next class, and that she was eventually awarded a professional qualification offering her prospects of reintegrating into the community at a later stage (see paragraphs 24 and 26-27 above). Those factors are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the State cannot be accused of having failed to comply with its obligation under Article 5 § 1 (d) to ensure that the placement pursued an educational objective (contrast Bouamar , cited above, § 52; D.G. v. Ireland , cited above, §§ 83-85; and Ichin and Others v.   Ukraine , nos. 28189/04 and 28192/04, §§ 39-40, 21 December 2010). The Court reiterates that it does not consider itself to have jurisdiction to examine the possible failings of the national system any further, seeing that it has been able to establish from the evidence before it that the measure to which the applicant was subjected pursued an educational purpose on a sufficient scale to fall within Article 5 § 1 (d) of the Convention. 78.     Concerning the allegedly arbitrary nature of the measure, its proportionality and whether it was taken as a last resort, the Court notes that the impugned decision to place the applicant in the school was taken by the judicial authorities following public hearings at which the applicant, the two social workers directly responsible for her, the representative of the local committee, the representative of the municipal child protection department and the inspector from the child protection team had given evidence. The applicant’s mother was also present and a lawyer was officially appointed at her request. The courts examined the evidence in detail and held that, bearing in mind the environment in which the applicant had been living at the relevant time, there was no real alternative to her placement in a correctional boarding school. 79.     In that connection it should be noted that Bulgarian legislation provides for a wide range of educational measures in response to juvenile antisocial behaviour. The most stringent of these measures – placement in a correctional boarding school – can only be applied where the other, less severe measures have had no effect ... As far as the Court is able to establish, the applicable procedure does not require the authorities ordering such a measure to draw up an individual plan setting out the practical educational objectives to be achieved by the children concerned . Similarly, although the statutory maximum duration of such a placement is set at three years ..., there does not appear to be any requirement for the courts to determine the length of the placement at the time of their initial decision. In the present case, those matters, and the question whether the Podem school was an appropriate institution in view of the applicant’s circumstances, were not discussed during the judicial proceedings. The Court notes, despite those failings in the system, that the authorities had first established that the applicant was not living in a suitable family environment for her own development, and this had already been the reason for her admission to another institution as a protective measure in August 2012, under the Child Protection Act. Furthermore, in the course of the judicial proceedings the applicant’s situation, her lifestyle and the risks to which she was exposed were highlighted in particular in the statements by the two social workers at the crisis centre, who had the closest contact with her. Their evidence indicated in particular that she still had dealings with the individuals who had initially incited her to engage in prostitution, that she was the victim of a “lover boy”-type trafficking scheme but refused to admit it and protect herself, that she behaved aggressively towards the staff at the centre and that she did not go straight back to the centre in the evenings after school. The two social workers confirmed that the applicant’s family environment was not favourable to her as there were indications that her mother had herself been a victim of violence and needed protection (see paragraph 11 above). The Court observes, moreover, that the mother had the option of addressing the court at the hearing, but it does not appear from the case file that she ever requested to do so ... The Court also notes that the applicant had clearly received educational support in the past, including less stringent educational measures than placement in the school (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). It does not find it arbitrary that the measures taken in her case were deemed insufficient by the authorities on account of the factors set out above. 80.     Having regard to those factors, the Court cannot accept the applicant’s argument that her placement in the school was an arbitrary measure and that the courts did not take her interests into account. Admittedly, the courts’ reasoning may appear somewhat brief and did not mention all the relevant circumstances. A particular cause for concern in this regard is that the courts did not address the issues relating to the individual plan for the applicant or to the duration and regular review of her placement. Nevertheless, the courts’ decisions clearly reflected the statements by the two social workers who had direct responsibility for the applicant in the crisis centre. Thus, it appears that following an examination of the applicant’s family situation, her social environment, her behaviour and the impact of the educational measures already implemented by the social workers, the judicial authorities reviewed and upheld the welfare institutions’ conclusion that the child required heightened educational supervision. The Court observes that the domestic authorities’ decision was largely driven by the concern to provide the applicant with an environment where she would be sheltered from specific, clearly identified risks, and hence to protect her interests as an adolescent in the process of psychological and social development. The material in the case file does not allow the Court to call into question the authorities’ conclusion on the matter. 81.     In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant’s placement had a punitive purpose, and it considers that