Background
The applicant, an Ivoirian national born in 2008, arrived in Italy in August 2023 and sought international protection. After age-assessment proceedings confirmed he was under 18, Italy placed him on 6 October 2023 in the C.A.R.A. reception and asylum-seekers centre in Restinco, Brindisi, a former adult facility then designated for unaccompanied minors.
He remained there for about two and a half months. He said he could not leave the centre and complained of poor conditions, inadequate activities, and lack of effective representation. His provisional guardian was the centre director. Following a Rule 39 interim measure, he was transferred on 22 December 2023 to a facility specifically for unaccompanied minors.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4. It held that the applicant had been de facto deprived of liberty: the evidence, including findings by Italy’s National Independent Authority for Children and Adolescents, showed that he could not leave the centre. His approximately two-and-a-half-month retention lacked a clear and accessible legal basis and was not ordered by a reasoned measure, making it arbitrary under Article 5 § 1 (f).
Because there was no clear legal basis for the deprivation of liberty, the authorities could not adequately inform him of its legal reasons or provide sufficient information for him to challenge it before a court. The Court therefore also found violations of Article 5 §§ 2 and 4. It rejected the Article 3 conditions complaint as manifestly ill-founded, finding that the evidence did not reach Article 3’s severity threshold, and found no need to examine the Article 8 and Article 13 complaints. It awarded EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
Key Takeaways
- An unaccompanied minor’s inability to leave an asylum reception centre can amount to a deprivation of liberty.
- Retention without a clear, accessible legal basis and a reasoned measure breaches Article 5 § 1.
- Without intelligible legal reasons and a means to challenge detention, Articles 5 §§ 2 and 4 are also violated.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that States must give special legal safeguards to unaccompanied migrant children placed in reception facilities. Labeling a placement as reception does not avoid Article 5 where the child is, in practice, unable to leave.
It also distinguishes unlawful confinement from Article 3 conditions claims: the Court found the liberty violations established, but concluded that the record did not prove treatment sufficiently severe to engage Article 3.