Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from