CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB820B5FC { width:14.24%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6F692B5A { width:34.06%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s77C59A19 { width:22.98%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s9FDA4D88 { width:28.72%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } Published on 25 November 2024   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 27637/23 and 19542/24 A.B.A. and Others against the Netherlands and A.B.A. and Others against the Netherlands lodged on 17 July 2023 and 5 July 2024 respectively communicated on 7 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the immigration detention of a family with three   children aged 2, 4, and 5 in a section of a detention centre which was specifically adapted to families with minor children and unaccompanied minors ( GGV Zeist ). They were expecting a fourth child. The applicants’ requests for asylum had been rejected and the authorities had planned a flight to remove them to Nigeria, their country of origin. During an interview on 16 June 2023, prior to issuing an order to detain them with a view to their removal, the applicants lodged subsequent asylum requests. On that same day a detention order was issued – and they were placed in immigration detention – with a view to obtaining information for the assessment of these requests and because it was considered that there was a risk that they would abscond or frustrate the proceedings. The applicants lodged an appeal against this detention order with the Regional Court, that was dismissed by a judgment of 6 July 2023. On 5 July 2023 their subsequent asylum requests were rejected and, consequently, on 6 July 2023 the detention order of 16 June 2023 was lifted and a detention order with a view to their removal was issued. The applicants lodged an appeal with the Regional Court against this new detention order, that was dismissed by a judgment of 18   July   2023. On the same day, an interim measure requested under Article   39 of the Rules of Court based on Article 3 of the Convention, was applied, ordering the authorities of the respondent State to lift the applicants’ detention. The applicants were released on 19 July 2023. By a judgment of 26   March 2023, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State upheld the judgments of the Regional Court of 6 and 18 July 2023. The applicants were detained for a total of 33 days in GGV Zeist, first pending the examination of their asylum requests for 20 days and, subsequently, with a view to their removal for 13 days. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given their age, the duration of the detention and the conditions of detention, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant children (see amongst others, A.M. and Others v.   France , no.   24587/12, §§ 44-46, 12 July 2016, and R.R. and Others v.   Hungary , no.   36037/17, §§ 48-49, 2 March 2021)?   2.     Did the applicant children have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicants’ detention in compliance with Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§   67 ‑ 74, ECHR 2008)? In respect to the applicant children, have the national authorities verified that no other measure involving a lesser restriction of freedom could be implemented ( M.H. and Others v. Croatia , nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18, §§ 237, 18 November 2021)?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which the lawfulness of the detention orders, issued against them on 16   June 2023 and 6 July 2023, was decided “speedily” by a court, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see   Khlaifia and Others v.   Italy   [GC], no.   16483/12, §§ 128-131, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?   ANNEX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. A.B.A. 1985 Nigerian 2. F.A. 2019 Nigerian 3. O.A. 1980 Nigerian 4. T.A. 2020 Nigerian 5. T.A. 2017 Nigerian