003-4153035-4902782

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 414 (2012)   13.11.2012   Lack of specific legislation criminalising domestic servitude   made investigation into victim’s allegations ineffective   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of C.N. v. the United Kingdom (application   no. 4239/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned allegations of domestic servitude by a Ugandan woman who   complained that she had been forced into working as a live-in carer.   The Court found that the legislative provisions in force in the United Kingdom at the   relevant time had been inadequate to afford practical and effective protection against   treatment contrary to Article 4. Due to this absence of specific legislation criminalising   domestic servitude, the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of domestic   servitude had been ineffective.   Principal facts   The applicant, Ms C.N., is a Ugandan national who was born in 1979. She left Uganda for   the United Kingdom in September 2002 with the help of her cousin, S., who enabled her   to enter the country with a false passport and visa. According to the applicant, her   purpose was to escape from the sexual and physical violence which she had experienced   in Uganda.   In early 2003 Ms C.N. began to work as a live-in carer for an elderly Iraqi couple (“Mr   and Mrs K”). She alleged that she was permanently on-call day and night as Mr K.   suffered from Parkinson’s disease. According to Ms C.N., her salary was sent to the   agent who had arranged her work with the K family; he then passed a percentage of that   money to S. on the apparent understanding that it would be paid to her. However, she   denied having received significant payment for her labour. During that time, her   passport was also retained.   In August 2006, she collapsed in a bank and spent a month in hospital, where she was   diagnosed as HIV positive and suffering from psychosis. Following her discharge from   hospital, Ms C.N. was housed by the local authority and made an application for asylum,   which was refused.   After the applicant’s solicitor had written to the police in April 2007, the Metropolitan   Police Human Trafficking Team commenced an investigation and interviewed Ms C.N.   They concluded that there was no substantial evidence of trafficking in her case. The   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Head of Legal Services at the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre2 further advised   that while the applicant worked with the K family she was well looked after and given   some money. There was, however, a dispute over money and it might have been that   “her cousin kept more than he should have done”.   After Ms C.N.’s solicitor had asked the police to consider prosecutions for other offences,   including slavery or forced labour, the police began to conduct further investigations in   January 2009. In their letter to Ms C.N.’s solicitor in August 2009, the police wrote that it   had been decided to conclude the investigation, based in particular on the conclusions of   the Human Trafficking Centre that “the circumstances of Ms N.’s case did not appear to   constitute an offence of trafficking people for the purposes of exploitation contrary to the   Asylum and Immigration Act 2004”.   On 6 April 2010 Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into force and   made slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour criminal offences punishable by   a fine and/or up to fourteen years’ imprisonment. This provision did not have   retrospective effect.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), Article 8 (right to respect   for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant   alleged that the treatment to which she had been subjected had amounted to domestic   servitude and that the authorities had been unable to investigate her case owing to the   absence of legislation in the United Kingdom at the time specifically criminalising   domestic servitude and forced or compulsory labour.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 January   2008.   The Aire Centre and the Equality and Human Rights Commission were granted leave to   make written submissions as third parties.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),   Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),   George Nicolaou (Cyprus),   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),   Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro),   and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 4   The Court noted that the authorities had first been made aware of the applicant’s   allegations of domestic servitude after she had collapsed in a bank in August 2006. In   her subsequent application for asylum, she had complained in particular that she had   been forced to work for the K family without remuneration. Furthermore, in April 2007   A multi-agency organisation based in Sheffield, providing a central point of expertise in the field of human   trafficking.   her solicitor had asked the police to investigate her case and during the interview by the   Human Trafficking Team, Ms C.N. had set out her domestic servitude complaints. The   Court observed that the circumstances of her case had been remarkably similar to the   facts of the Siliadin v. France3 case, in which the Court confirmed that Article 4 entailed   a specific positive obligation on member States to penalise and prosecute effectively any   act aimed at maintaining a person in a situation of slavery, servitude or forced or   compulsory labour.   The Court therefore considered that the applicant’s complaints had given rise to a   credible suspicion of domestic servitude, which in turn had placed the British authorities   under an obligation to investigate those complaints. The Court noted in that connection   that the authorities’ investigation into the applicant’s complaints had strongly indicated   that her allegations had not been inherently implausible.   In view of its findings in the Siliadin judgment - that the provisions of the French   Criminal Code were too restrictive to protect the applicant’s rights under Article 4 - the   Court could only conclude that the legislative provisions in force in the United Kingdom   at the time had been inadequate to afford practical and effective protection against   treatment contrary to Article 4. Indeed, the authorities had been limited to investigating   and penalising criminal offences which often – but not necessarily – accompanied the   offences of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. Victims of domestic   servitude who had not also been victims of one of these related offences had been left   without any remedy.   The Court then examined whether this lack of specific legislation criminalising domestic   servitude had prevented the domestic authorities from properly investigating the   applicant’s complaints. It was concerned by the fact that the investigation had been   carried out by a specialist trafficking unit who nearly exclusively focused on the offence   of trafficking for exploitation as set out in the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, when   domestic servitude was, as indicated in the third party interventions4, a specific offence,   distinct from trafficking and exploitation.   Consequently, as domestic servitude involved a complex set of dynamics, due weight   had to be given to subtle ways an individual could fall under the control of another,   which the domestic authorities had been unable to do in Ms C.N.’s case, in the absence   of a specific offence of domestic servitude. In particular, no attempt had been made to   interview S. and no apparent weight had been attributed to the applicant’s allegations   that her passport had been taken from her, that S. had not kept her wages for her as   agreed and that she had been threatened with denunciation to the immigration   authorities, even though these factors had been identified by the International Labour   Organization as indicators of forced labour.   The Court concluded that the investigation into Ms C.N.’s allegations of domestic   servitude had been ineffective due to the absence of specific legislation criminalising   such treatment in the United Kingdom at the relevant time, in breach of Article 4 of the   Convention.   Other articles   Having regard to its findings under Article 4, the Court considered that it was not   necessary to examine the applicant’s complains under Articles 8 and 13.   Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, 26.07.2005.   By the Aire Centre and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (§§ 61-64 of the judgment)   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The court held that the United Kingdom was to pay the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) in   respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4