R.M. and Others v. France

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 198

July 2016

R.M. and Others v. France - 33201/11

Judgment 12.7.2016 [Section V]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Administrative detention of minors pending expulsion: violations

Article 5

Article 5-1-f

Expulsion

Authorities required to examine alternative measures to administrative detention of families pending expulsion: violations, no violations

[This summary also covers the following judgments of 12 July 2016: A.B. and Others v. France (11593/12) ; R.K. and Others v. France (68264/14) ; R.C. and V.C. v. France (76491/14) ; A.M. and Others v. France (24587/12)]

Facts – In the context of deportation procedures, the applicants, families with underage children originally from Russia, Armenia and Romania, were placed in the Toulouse-Cornebarrieu and Metz-Queuleu administrative detention centres.

Law

Article 3: In cases concerning the placement in administrative detention of accompanied foreign minors, the Court had concluded, inter alia, that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the convergence of three factors: the children’s young ages, the duration of their administrative detention and the fact that the premises concerned were not adapted for children (see Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, 41442/07, 19 January 2010, Information Note 126; and Popov v. France, 39472/07, 19 January 2012, Information Note 148).

With regard to the material conditions of administrative detention, the Toulouse-Cornebarrieu and Metz-Queuleu centres were among those “authorised” to receive families. The authorities had been careful to separate families from other detainees, to provide bedrooms that were specially adapted and to make available appropriate equipment for childcare.

However, the Toulouse-Cornebarrieu Centre had been constructed immediately next to an airport runway; it was therefore exposed to particularly strong noise pollution. The children, for whom periods of outside playtime were necessary, were thus subjected to excessive levels of noise.

In general, the inherent constraints in detention, which was especially difficult for young children, as well as the conditions of organised life in the centres, had necessarily produced anxiety in the applicants’ children. In particular, they had been permanently subjected to announcements made over the centres’ loudspeakers. Furthermore, in the Metz-Queuleu Centre the interior courtyard of the family area was separated from the “men’s” area by only a metal fence, allowing everything that happened inside to be observed.

Beyond a brief period, the repetition and accumulated nature of these mental and emotional assaults necessarily had adverse consequences for young children, exceeding the relevant threshold of gravity to fall within the scope of Article 3. It followed that the duration of detention was of paramount importance.

This brief period had been exceeded in respect of the detention for eighteen days of a four-year-old child in the conditions set out above (case of A.B. and Others). In addition, since he could not be left on his own, he had been obliged to accompany his parents to all of the meetings required by their situation, and to the various judicial and administrative hearings. During those visits, he had been required to be in close proximity to armed and uniformed police officers. Finally, he had been exposed to his parents’ emotional and mental distress, in a place of detention where they had been unable to put the necessary distance between them for his protection.

The above-mentioned short period had also been exceeded with regard to the administrative detention of:

(i) a child of two-and-a- half years and another of four months, for a duration of at least seven days (case of A.M. and Others);

(ii) a seven-month-old child, for at least seven days (case of R.M. and Others);

(iii) a two-year-old child, for a ten-day period (case of R.C. and V.C.);

(iv) a child of fifteen months, for at least nine days (case of R.K. and Others).

Conclusion: violation in respect of the applicants’ children (unanimously).

Article 5 § 1 (f): The presence in administrative detention of a child accompanying his or her parents was compatible with that provision only in so far as the domestic authorities demonstrated that they had resorted to that measure of last resort only after having verified, in tangible terms, that no other coercive measure could be put in place.

(a) Cases of A.B. and Others, R.M. and Others and R.K. and Others: Alternative measures to the families’ placement in administrative detention had not been sought.

Conclusion: violation in respect of the applicants’ children (unanimously).

(b) Case of A.M. and Others: The option of resorting to a less coercive measure had been dismissed by the prefect on account of the applicant’s refusal to contact the border police with a view to organising her departure, the absence of identity papers and the uncertain nature of her accommodation.

(c) Case of R.C. and V.C.: The option of resorting to a less coercive measure had been dismissed by the prefect on account of the applicant’s conviction for serious offences, her declared wish not to return to her country of origin and the fact that she had no known address.

The domestic authorities had thus effectively sought to establish whether the placement of these families in administrative detention was a measure of last resort for which no alternative was available.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

The Court also concluded that there would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicants were to be sent back to Russia (cases of R.M. and Others and R.K. and Others).

It also found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of the applicants’ children (cases of A.B. and Others, R.M. and Others and R.K. and Others) and a violation of Article 8 in respect of all of the applicants (in the cases of A.B. and Others and R.K. and Others).

In contrast, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of the applicants’ children and no violation of Article 8 in respect of all of the applicants (in the cases of A.M. and Others and R.C. and V.C.).

Article 41: awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ranging from EUR 1,500 to EUR 9,000.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy