003-7300476-9953546

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 113 (2022)   31.03.2022   The length of the administrative detention of an under-age child placed with   his parents in the Metz-Queuleu administrative detention centre led to a   twofold violation of the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of N.B. and Others v. France (application no. 49775/20)   the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European   Convention on Human Rights in respect of K.G., who had been an under-age child at the material   time, and no violation of Article 3 in respect of the parents, N.B. and N.G.;   A violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   The case concerned the placement in administrative detention for fourteen days of a Georgian   couple and their then eight-year-old child, who had entered France unlawfully and whose asylum   requests had been rejected.   The Court considered that the administrative detention of an eight-year-old child under the   conditions prevailing at the material time in the administrative detention centre where they had   been placed, which had continued for fourteen days, had been excessive in the light of the   requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. Given the child’s young age, the conditions of detention   in the Metz-Queuleu centre and the length of the period of detention, the competent authorities   had subjected him to treatment exceeding the severity threshold of Article 3.   As regards the parents, on the other hand, the Court stated that it had been unable to conclude, on   the basis of the evidence on file, that they had been in a situation that reached the severity   threshold to fall foul of Article 3.   Moreover, having noted that the interim measure adopted by the Court on Friday 13 November   inviting the Government to terminate the applicants’ administrative detention during the   proceedings before it had not been enforced, the Court found that in the absence of any justification   for such non-enforcement, the French authorities had failed to honour their obligations under   Article 34.   Principal facts   The applicants, N.B., N.G. and their son K.G., are Georgian nationals who were born in 1988, 1984   and 2012 respectively. They unlawfully entered France in 2019, and their asylum applications were   rejected. In the framework of their forced removal, the Ardennes Prefecture reserved a flight to   Georgia for 7 November 2020. On 6 November 2020 the Ardennes Prefect issued orders placing N.B.   and N.G. in administrative detention. The applicants refused to board the flight on 7 November   2020, and they were taken back to the administrative detention centre in Metz.   By two orders of 9 November 2020, the judge with responsibility for civil liberties and detention   matters of the Metz District Court authorised the extension of N.B.’s and N.G.’s detention for 28   1. 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.   days. By two orders of 12 November 2020, the judge delegated by the First Present of the Metz   Court of Appeal upheld the orders issued by the civil liberties and detention judge.   On 13 November 2020 the Court, having received a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of   its Rules of Court, invited the Government to put an end to the applicants’ administrative detention.   On 20 November 2020 the Government agent informed the Court that the applicants had been   removed to Georgia that very morning.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the   applicants submitted that their placement in administrative detention had amounted to inhuman or   degrading treatment. Relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), the applicants complained   that the French authorities had not released them further to the Court’s decision to allow their   request for interim measures aimed at terminating their administrative detention, pursuant to Rule   of the Rules of Court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 November 2020.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), President,   Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),   Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),   Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro),   Mattias Guyomar (France),   Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic),   and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that in the present case the under-age applicant had been accompanied by both his   parents for the duration of the administrative detention. It observed that the child’s extreme   vulnerability had been the decisive factor and took precedence over considerations relating to the   status of illegal immigrant of his or her parent.   As regards the criterion of the child’s age, the Court noted that an eight-year-old child could not be   deemed to have sufficient understanding to grasp the situation he was in, and that he was therefore   in a situation of extreme vulnerability.   As for the criterion of conditions of administrative detention, the Court noted that the Metz-   Queuleu centre was one of those authorised to accommodate families.   The Court had already noted that the accommodation conditions in the Metz-Queuleu   administrative detention centre were insufficient on their own to reach the severity threshold for   the applicability of Article 3. It reaffirmed that beyond a brief period of administrative detention, the   repetition and accumulation of the effects engendered in particular at the mental and emotional   level by deprivation of liberty would necessarily have harmful consequences for a young child,   exceeding the above-mentioned threshold. In that connection, the time factor took on particular   significance.   The Court reiterated that the parents’ conduct, that is to say their refusal to board the flight, was not   decisive for whether the severity threshold had been crossed with regard to the under-age child.   The Court considered that the administrative detention of an eight-year-old child in the conditions   prevailing at the material time in the administrative detention centre where they had been placed,   which had continued for fourteen days, was excessive in the light of the requirements of Article 3 of   the Convention.   It further noted, in the light of the overall reasoning of the orders of 9 November and 12 November   2020, that the judge with responsibility for civil liberties and detention matters of the Metz District   Court disregarded the presence of K.G. and his status as an under-age child, and that the judge   delegated by the First President of the Metz Court of Appeal had taken insufficient account of that   status, even though the last indent of Article L. 551-1 (III) bis of the Code regulating the entry and   residence of aliens and asylum-seekers provided that in such matters “the best interests of the child   must be the primary consideration”.   The Court was able to conclude that given the child’s young age, the conditions of detention in the   Metz-Queuleu centre and the length of the period of detention, the competent authorities had   subjected him to treatment exceeding the severity threshold of Article 3 of the Convention.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the minor K.G.   As regards the parents, the Court noted that the adult applicants’ complaint concerning their   suffering in the administrative detention centre had not been substantiated. It acknowledged that   the administrative detention of parents with their child could have created a feeling of   powerlessness and caused them distress and frustration, but it had been unable to conclude, on the   basis of the evidence on file, that they had been in a situation attaining the severity threshold to fall   foul of Article 3 of the Convention.   There had therefore been no violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants N.B. and N.G.   Article 34   The respondent Government had been informed of the interim measure indicated by the Court on   Friday 13 November 2020 at 6.33 p.m. In its letter the Court had pointed out that the duty judge had   decided to ask the Government, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to put an end to the   applicants’ administrative detention for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. On   Monday 16 November 2020 the Ordre de Malte France, an association supporting the applicants,   had reported to the Court that the interim measure indicated had not been executed. On Friday 20   November 2020 the Government informed the Court that the applicants had been removed that   very morning, thus putting an end to their administrative detention.   The Court emphasised that in his order of 19 November 2020, the urgent applications judge of   Nancy Administrative Court had held that the Ardennes Prefect had not relied on any compelling   reason of public order – which the Court stated did not constitute a circumstance capable of   justifying a refusal to execute an interim measure – or on any objective obstacle preventing the   French Government from complying with the interim measure indicated by the Court.   In the absence of any justification for the non-enforcement of the interim measure, the Court   concluded that the French authorities had failed to honour their obligations under Article 34. There   had therefore been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that France was to pay the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage.   The judgment is available only in French.   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 or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Denis Lambert (tel : + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Inci Ertekin (tel : + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel : + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel : + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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