EU: Standards and Case-law on (alternatives to) detention of migrant children
Contributing to ending the detention of children in migration by promoting viable alternatives to detention, the project “Children’s Alternatives to Detention protecting their Rights in Europe (CADRE)” seeks to promote the expansion, implementation and improvement of effective alternatives to detention for migrant children in full respect of their rights in the European Union, meaning arrangements which can ensure the children’s well-being and rights under EU and international law. The project “pRotEcting migrant chiLdrEn AgainSt detention through the EU Charter (RELEASE)” seeks to build on the achievements of the recent CADRE Project.
This database seeks to facilitate access to extracts of laws and jurisprudence, best practices and standards, on alternatives to detention for migrant children by providing a searchable and updated tool for legal professionals dealing with cases of migrant children. In doing so, the project aims to foster an effective and consistent application of EU and international law and standards on alternatives to detention, benefitting migrant children at risk of being detained or whose rights may be violated in alternatives to detention or alternative forms of detention, in the focus countries, and in the long-term, across the EU more generally.
The CADRE project was implemented in collaboration with seven partner organisations: Aditus (Malta), Foundation for Access to Rights (Bulgaria), Greek Council for Refugees (Greece), Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland), Defence for Children International – Belgium, Hungarian Helsinki Committee (Hungary), and the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI) (Italy). The RELEASE project involves one additional partner organisations: Forum for Human Rights (Czech Republic).
This webpage presents a compilation of international standards and national case-law, shared with the ICJ by national experts: the ICJ is not responsible for the content of the cases. Please do not hesitate to let us know (karolina.babicka@icj.org) if you deem an important case or standard is missing from the database.
These projects are funded by the European Union. The content of this publication represents the views of the ICJ only and is its sole responsibility, and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
Search
Countries
Key Words
Organisations / Bodies / Institutions
Type
Date
Regional court of Augustów, decision II Ko 317/22, 30 March 2022
In this case, the regional court stated that a father with a three-year-old child should not be placed in a detention facility for humanitarian reasons and to safeguard his right to dignity.
Regional Court of Augustów, decision II Ko 323/22, 14 April 2022
The Regional Court recalled that the detention of refugees in a detention camp shall be a measure of last resort.
Regional Court of Augustów, decision II Ko 305/22, 29 March 2022
Based on humanitarian rules, the Regional Court of Augustów ruled that a mother with three young children – two of them being babies – should not be placed in a detention facility.
Regional Court of Augustów, decision II Ko 213/22, 7 March 2022
The Regional Court of Augustów stated that the conditions in detention camps are not adequate for a family with young children.
District Court of Lublin, decision XI KZ 602/23, 5 July 2023
As a result of an appeal, the District Court addressed the case of a 16-year-old Somali refugee who had been placed in a closed detention camp without taking under consideration her birth certificate.
Regional Court of Zgorzelec, decision II Ko 4080/22, 20 December 2022
The Regional Court of Zgorzelec addressed the case of a mother who gave birth to her child during her international protection application procedure.
Regional Court of Zgorzelec, decision II Ko 3397/22, 26 October 2022
Based on the principle of the best interests of the child, the regional court ruled that being a parent of underage children constitutes a negative prerequisite for adjudging detention of the entire family in a...
View moreRegional Court of Zgorzelec, decision II Ko 3396/22, 26 October 2022
Based on the principle of the best interests of the child, the regional court ruled that being a parent of underage children constitutes a negative prerequisite for adjudging detention of the entire family in a...
View moreRegional Court of Zgorzelec, decision II Ko 3384/22, 22 October 2022
Based on the principle of the best interests of the child, the regional court ruled that being a parent of underage children constitutes a negative prerequisite for adjudging detention of the entire family in a...
View moreRegional Court of Zgorzelec, decision II Ko 3043/22, 20 September 2022
The Regional Court of Zgorzelec recalled that the detention of children is an exception, even though the Polish law allows to a minor to be placed with his or her family in a closed detention...
View moreRegional Court of Białystok, decision IV Nsm 1687/21, 30 September 2021
The case concerns an accompanied minor who was put in a care and educational facility for 3 months, while her brother was placed in a detention camp.
District Court of Olsztyn, decision II Ko 192/21, 15 March 2022
The case concerns a child detained in a closed detention camp in Poland although the child has applied for international protection in the country.
Supreme Court of Poland, decision II KK 148/22, 20 June 2023
The Polish Supreme Court ruled that a refugee who had been wrongfully placed in a refugee camp is entitled to claim compensation from public authorities.
L. v. Hungary, Application No. 6182/20, Judgment of 21 March 2024 (Committee)
This case concerns the unjustified detention of a Syrian national for six months which constitutes a violation of Article 5§1 of the Convention.
K.J. and Others v. Russia, Applications Nos. 27584/20 and 39768/20, Judgment of 19 March 2024
The ECtHR addressed this case regarding a detention pending expulsion of two convicted applicants captured in Russian territorial waters.
H.D. v. Italy, Application No. 41645/23, Communicated case of 18 March 2024
The case concerns the poor conditions of the retention of an unaccompanied minor migrant, placed for about five months in an adult hotspot.
H46-19 Darboe and Camara group v. Italy (Application No. 5797/17), Decision of 14 March 2024 (Committee of Ministers)
The supervision of the execution of the ECtHR’s judgment in Darboe and Camara European lead the Committee of Ministers to “firmly” underline the authorities’ obligation to preventing further breaches of the absolute prohibition of inhuman or...
View moreM.H. and S.B. v. Hungary, Application Nos. 10940/17 and 15977/17, Judgment of 22 February 2024
In this case regarding the detention of two minor asylum seekers, the ECtHR found a violation of Articles 5§1 of the ECHR for both applicants.
ASGI v. Ministry of the Interior, Court of Catania (Italy) No. 12915/2023 RG., 5 February 2024
The Court of Catania addressed the case of the ASGI association following the identification of over 100 unaccompanied foreign minors detained in the Contrada Cifali hotspot for up to three months.
A.D. v. Malta, Application No. 12427/22, Judgment of 17 October 2023
The ECtHR addressed this case regarding the detention of a minor asylum seeker and found a violation of Articles 5.1, 3, and 13 ECHR. The Court held that the detention conditions were distressing and inadequate...
View moreR.T.A v. The Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (Malta), Ref. 22L-008, 16 May 2023
In this case, the appellant lodged an age assessment appeal regarding Article 25A(7) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta. The Immigration Appeals Board Division II however found that, given (a)...
View moreM.K v. The Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (Malta), Ref. AA.10.23, 16 May 2023
In this case, the appellant lodged an appeal regarding his age assessment regarding Article 25A(7) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta. The Immigration Appeals Board Division considered the bone age...
View moreKanagaratnam v. Belgium, Application No. 15297/09, Judgment of 13 December 2011
This decision concerns the detention of four Sri Lankan asylum seekers of Tamil origin, a woman and her three children (aged 13, 11 and 8 respectively at the time of the events), for almost four...
View moreCase No. P.22.0616.F, National Court decision (Belgium), Judgment of 25 May 2022
This case concerns the deprivation of liberty of a third-country national subject to a removal procedure and the possibility that there is a risk of absconding.
Source: here
KEBE and others, Application no. 12552/12, Judgment of 12 January 2017 & Nur Ahmed and others, Application no. 42779/12, Judgment of 18 June 2020 & Nur and others, Application no. 77647/11, Judgment of 16 July 2020 & M.S., Application no. 17189/11, Judgment of 11 June 2020 v. Ukraine
This group of cases concerns various deficiencies in the procedures related to different aspects of the treatment of asylum-seekers in Ukraine at different times in 2011-2020, among others various problems in detention of persons present...
View moreP.N., K.K. and O.M. on behalf of S.N., Mh.K., Mu.K., S.M., K.M and J.M. v. Finland, communication No. 100/2019, 12 September 2022
In this case, the applicants on behalf of their grandchildren (all Finland nations) who were held in a camp and had no access to legal aid or to legal information that would enable them to...
View moreM.E. v. Spain, Communication No. 78/2019, 10 March 2022
This case concerned a 17-year old Moroccan national that was intercepted while attempting to enter Spain in a migrant boat. He had no papers and was taken to a hospital where an X-ray of his...
View moreC.O.C. v. Spain, Communication No. 63/2018, 29 January 2021
In this case the applicant maintained that the State failed to respect his right to be presumed to be a minor in the event of doubt or uncertainty and thus acted against his best interests...
View moreM.B.S. v. Spain, Communication No. 26/2017, 28 September 2020
In this case the applicant maintained that the State failed to respect his right to be presumed to be a minor in the event of doubt or uncertainty and thus acted against his best interests...
View moreS.M.A. v. Spain, Communication No. 40/2018, 28 September 2020
In this case the applicant claimed that the State violated his rights under articles 3, 8, 18 (2), 20, 27 and 29 of the Convention as well as his right to be presumed a minor...
View moreM.B. v. Spain, Communication No. 28/2017, 28 September 2020
In this case the applicant maintained that the State failed to respect his right to be presumed to be a minor in the event of doubt or uncertainty and thus acted against his best interests...
View moreA.D. v. Spain, Communication No. 21/2017, 4 February 2020
In this case, the applicant claims that the failure of the State to recognize the validity of the original copies of his official identity documents and his refusal to undergo unnecessary tests to assess his...
View moreD.K.N. v. Spain, Communication No. 15/2017, 1 February 2019
This case concerns a citizen of Ghana who arrived in Spain in an irregular manner in 2016 stating that he is a minor and presenting a Ghanaian birth certificate. The Spanish authorities deemed this document...
View moreCommunications No. 73/2019 K.K. and R.H on behalf A.M.K. and S.K. v. Belgium, 22 March 2022
The CRC Committee found that the children’s detention in closed family detention centres violated the prohibition on ill-treatment (art. 37 CRC), read alone and in conjunction with the best-interests principle (art. 3 CRC). Source: Pdf...
View moreSabani v. Belgium, Application No. 53069/15, Judgment of 8 March 2022
In this case, the Court decided that the use of handcuffs on a mother in front of her daughter is an aggravating factor.
Source: click here
Darboe and Camara v. Italy, Application No. 5797/17, Judgment of 21 July 2022
This case concerns 2 unaccompanied minor migrants interned in an overcrowded reception centre for adult migrants for 4 months. This constitutes a violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the ECHR.
Source: click here.
Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta, Applications No. 25794/13 and 28151/13, Judgment of 22 November 2016
This case concerns detention for 8 months of 2 minors, aged 16 and 17, in a centre with deplorable conditions (overcrowding, lack of light and ventilation, absence of activities and tense atmosphere) while awaiting the...
View moreAffaire Mohamad v. Greece, Application No. 70586/11, Judgment of 11 December 2014
This case concerns the detention for 5 months of an Iraqi minor at a border post in Sufli in unacceptable conditions and without taking into consideration his condition as a minor. This constitutes a violation...
View moreH.M. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 38967/17, Judgment of 2 October 2022
This case concerns the detention in a transit zone for 4 months of an Iraqi family composed of 4 children born between 2001 and 2013, which constitutes a violation of Articles 3 and 5 ECHR....
View moreMuskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, Application No. 41442/07, Judgment of 19 January 2010
This case concerns the detention of a mother and her four children (aged 7 months, three and a half years, five and seven years at the time of the events) for more than a month...
View moreJ.B. and Others v. Malta, Application no. 1766/23 (Decision on interim measures)
Decision on interim measures ordering Malta to release child applicants to an accommodation with reception conditions that would be compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to their status as unaccompanied minors.
Source here.
Minasian and others v. the Republic of Moldova, Application no. 26879/17
In this case the European Court of Human Rights has examined the detention of children without a legal basis when they accompany their mother in detention, the inability of children to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, the domestic courts’ failure...
View moreCommunications No. 55/2018 E.B on behalf of E.H. et al. v. Belgium, 24 March 2022
The CRC Committee found that the children’s detention in closed family detention centres violated the prohibition on ill-treatment (art. 37 CRC), read alone and in conjunction with the best-interests principle (art. 3 CRC). Belgium’s failure...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 372/21, 30 July 2021
The Court stated that a prolongation of a parents and their child’s stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was not warranted as the lengthening of the asylum procedure was not of their doing. The...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 624/21, 21 December 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two children. Source: PDF...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 598/21, 10 December 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for a child. Source: PDF file with...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 578/21, 3 December 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for a child. Source: PDF file with...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 570/21, 26 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two young children. Source:...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 569/21, 26 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two young children. Source:...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 565/21, 26 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two young children. Source:...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 561/21, 26 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for a young child. Source: PDF file...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 555/21, 23 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s five children. Source: PDF...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 546/21, 22 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two young children. Source:...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 545/21, 24 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two young children. Source:...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 494/21, 11 November 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for young children. Source: PDF file with...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 397/21, 13 August 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two young children. Source:...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 388/21, 6 August 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for young children. Source: PDF file with...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 372/21, 30 July 2021
The Court stated that a prolongation of a parents and their child’s stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was not warranted as the lengthening of the asylum procedure was not of their doing. The...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 355/21, 23 July 2021
The Court stated that a prolongation of a parent and their child’s stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was not warranted as the lengthening of the asylum procedure was not of their doing. The...
View moreDistrict Court of Olsztyn, decision VII Kz 266/21, 11 June 2021
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for young children. Source: PDF file with...
View moreResults per page
We’d love to hear your resource hub feedback.
"*" indicates required fields