CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 janvier 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. 84 March 2006 Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium (dec.) - 13178/03 Decision 26.1.2006 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Detention of an unaccompanied five-year-old child at a transit centre for adult foreigners and conditions in which she was removed to her home country: admissible   Article 5 Article 5-1-d Minors Detention of an unaccompanied five-year-old foreign child at a transit centre for adult foreigners before her removal: admissible   Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Detention in a transit centre in Belgium and removal to the Democratic Republic of Congo of an unaccompanied 5-year-old foreign minor whose mother is a refugee in Canada: admissible   The applicants, a mother and daughter, are Congolese nationals. After obtaining refugee status in Canada, the mother asked her brother, a Dutch national living in the Netherlands, to collect her daughter Tabitha, then five years old, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to look after her until she was able to join her in Canada. Tabitha did not have the necessary documents to enter Belgium and so, following her arrival at Brussels Airport, directions were made for her removal and she was placed in a transit centre for aliens. Her uncle returned to the Netherlands. On the same day a lawyer was assigned to represent the child and made an unsuccessful application for asylum on her behalf. He stressed that the purpose of the child's journey was to join her mother in Canada; he also made an unsuccessful application for the removal directions to be set aside and for the child to be permitted to stay with foster parents or in a home adapted to her needs. The Aliens Office said that the child's family had been located in Kinshasa. The High Commissioner for Refugees requested permission for the child to remain in Belgium while her application for a Canadian visa was being processed. It advised that its inquiries had revealed that there not appear to be any adults able to look after the child in Kinshasa. A Belgian court granted an application for the child's release that had been made by her lawyer. It found that her detention was incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child signed in New York in 1989. On the same day the representative of the High Commissioner for Refugees informed the Aliens Office that the mother had been granted refugee status in Canada. The following day the child was removed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She was accompanied to the airport by a social worker and an air hostess was assigned to look after her on board the aircraft. However, there were no members of her family waiting for her when she arrived in Kinshasa. The following day, the Belgian authorities were informed by the Canadian embassy that the child's mother was entitled as a refugee to have the members of her family join her. A few days later, Tabitha joined her mother in Canada following the intervention of the Belgian and Canadian Prime Ministers, the latter of whom had agreed in principle to authorise the reunion of the family. Admissible under Articles 3, 5(1)(d), 5(4), 8 and 13. The Government’s preliminary objection of a failure to exhaust domestic remedies was dismissed.   © 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