Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles

IMMIGRATION: Mubilanzila Mayeka v Belgium (Application no 13178/03)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : mubilanzila-mayeka-v-belgium-application-no-13178-03
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 12, 2007, 09:15 AM
Article ID : 87955

(European Court of Human Rights; 12 October 2006)

After the mother had been granted refugee status in Canada, the mother's brother, who was a Dutch national, brought the 5-year-old child from Congo to Europe without appropriate travel or immigration papers, intending to arrange transport to Canada. The child was refused leave to enter Belgium and detained by the authorities; the mother's brother left the child with the Belgian immigration authorities and returned to The Netherlands. The child was detained for almost 2 months in a transit centre designed for adults. The mother was informed of the child's whereabouts and investigations were made with the Canadian authorities. Eventually the child was deported to the Congo; neither the mother nor any other relatives of the child was informed of the deportation, and, as there was no one available to meet the child in the Congo, the Congolese authorities took charge of her. Eventually the child was granted a Canadian visa and flew directly to Canada.

There had been breaches not only of Art 8, but also of Art 3 and Art 5. A child who was an illegal immigrant in a foreign country, unaccompanied by family, was in an extremely vulnerable position. The State had owed the child a duty to provide care and protection. The child's detention in a camp designed for adults amounted to inhuman treatment. The circumstances of the deportation also showed such a total lack of humanity towards the child as to amount to inhuman treatment. The effect of the detention was to separate the child from the member of the family in whose care she had been placed and who was responsible for her welfare, with the result that she became an unaccompanied foreign minor. The detention had also significantly delayed the reunification of the child with the mother. In the absence of any risk of the child seeking to evade the supervision of the Belgian authorities, her detention in a closed centre for adults had been unnecessary.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from