CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 février 2005

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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. 72 February 2005 Siliadin v. France (dec.) - 73316/01 Decision 1.2.2005 [Section II] Article 4 Article 4-1 Servitude Article 4-2 Forced labour Foreign minor forced by private individuals to work without payment and rest: admissible   The applicant is a Togolese national who was aged under sixteen years when she arrived in France. Contrary to what had been arranged, she was obliged to work as a maid without pay, to take charge of household chores and to care for three, and subsequently four, children from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. every day without respite. In the absence of a residence or work permit, her passport having been taken from her, and with no resources, the applicant endured this exploitative situation for three years, during which time the couple who were using her in this way held out the promise of rapid regularisation of her immigration status. Alerted by a neighbour, the Committee against Modern Slavery eventually lodged a complaint about the applicant’s situation with the prosecution service. Criminal proceedings were brought against the couple. At the close of the proceedings, which the applicant had joined as a civil party, the couple were convicted of taking advantage of the applicant’s vulnerability and dependency in order to obtain unpaid services from her. The applicant received EUR   15,245   in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. An industrial tribunal awarded her sums of money in respect of salary arrears and paid leave which she had not been granted. The applicant complained of the absence of a domestic protection machinery that would both act as a deterrent and impose punitive measures. Admissible under Article 4: The respondent Government submitted that the applicant had lost her “victim” status on account of the judicial decisions in her favour and the regularisation of her administrative position in France. This question was joined to the merits.   © 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