CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 décembre 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 213 December 2017 S.F. and Others v. Bulgaria - 8138/16 Judgment 7.12.2017 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Conditions of immigration detention of accompanied minors: violation Facts – The applicants, three Iraqi minors who had fled Iraq accompanied by their parents, were intercepted by police at the Bulgarian-Serbian border and detained (with their parents) in a Border Police detention facility in the town of Vidin (Bulgaria). They were later transferred to an immigration detention facility in Sofia and subsequently granted asylum in Switzerland. Before the European Court the applicants alleged that the conditions of their immigration detention in Vidin had subjected them to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article   3. Law – Article 3: The immigration detention of minors raised particular issues as children, whether accompanied or not, were extremely vulnerable and had specific needs. The period under consideration in the case was between thirty-two and forty-one hours. That amount of time was considerably shorter than the periods at issue in recent cases where the Court had examined the conditions in which accompanied minors had been kept in immigration detention. However, the conditions in the border police’s detention facility were considerably worse than in those cases. The cell in which the applicants had been kept, though relatively well ventilated and lit, was extremely run-down. It was dirty and contained worn out bunk beds, mattresses and bed linen, and there was litter and damp cardboard on the floor. There had been limited possibilities for accessing the toilet which had forced them to urinate onto the floor of the cell in which they were kept. The authorities had allegedly failed to provide the applicants with food and drink for more than twenty-four hours after taking them into custody and the Government did not dispute the allegation that the applicants’ mother had only been given access to the baby bottle and the milk of the youngest applicant, who was one-and-a-half years old, about nineteen hours after they had been taken into custody. The combination of the above-mentioned factors must have considerably affected the applicants, both physically and psychologically, and must have had particularly nefarious effects on the youngest applicant in view of his very young age. While it was true that in recent years the High Contracting States that sat on the European Union’s external borders had had difficulties in coping with the massive influx of migrants, it could not be said that at the relevant time Bulgaria was facing an emergency of such proportions that it was practically impossible for its authorities to ensure minimally decent conditions in the short-term holding facilities in which they decided to place minor migrants immediately after their interception and arrest. In any event, in view of the absolute character of Article   3, an increasing influx of migrants could not absolve a High Contracting State of its obligations under that provision. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 600 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Khlaifia and Others v.   Italy [GC], 16483/12, 15   December 2016, Information Note 202 ; Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v.   Belgium , 41442/07, 19   January 2010, Information Note 126 ; and R.M. and Others v.   France , 33201/11 , 12   July 2016)   © 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