Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77
July-August 2005
Siliadin v. France - 73316/01
Judgment 26.7.2005 [Section II]
Article 4
Article 4-1
Servitude
Article 4-2
Forced labour
Foreign minor without residence papers placed against her will into a situation of dependence which forced her to work without rest and payment: violation
Facts: The applicant is a Togolese national who, after being brought to France by a relative of her father before she had reached the age of sixteen, was made to work as an unpaid servant. As an impecunious illegal immigrant in France, whose passport had been confiscated, she was forced against her will and without respite to work for Mr and Mrs B., doing housework and looking after their three, and later four, young children. The applicant worked from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. every day and had to share the children’s bedroom. The exploitation continued for several years, during which time Mr and Mrs B. led the applicant to believe that her immigration status would soon be regularised. Finally, after being alerted by a neighbour, the Committee against Modern Slavery reported the matter to the prosecuting authorities. Criminal proceedings were brought against the couple, who were acquitted of the criminal charges. Proceedings continued in respect of the civil aspect of the case and resulted in the couple’s being convicted and ordered to pay compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant for having taken advantage of her vulnerability and dependent situation by making her work without pay.
Law: Article 4 – Article 4 imposed positive obligations on States, consisting in the adoption and effective implementation of criminal-law provisions making the practices set out in Article 4 a punishable offence. In accordance with modern standards and trends in relation to the protection of human beings from slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, States were under an obligation to penalise and punish any act aimed at maintaining a person in a situation incompatible with Article 4.
In the instant case the applicant had worked for years for Mr and Mrs B., without respite, against her will and without being paid. She had been a minor at the relevant time, unlawfully present in a foreign country and afraid of being arrested by the police. Indeed, Mr and Mrs B. had maintained that fear and led her to believe that her status would be regularised. Hence the applicant had, at the least, been subjected to forced labour within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Court had then to determine whether the applicant had also been held in slavery or servitude within the meaning of Article 4.
With regard to slavery, although the applicant had been deprived of her personal autonomy, the evidence did not suggest that she had been held in slavery in the proper sense, in other words that Mr and Mrs B. had exercised a genuine right of ownership over her, thus reducing her to the status of an object. Accordingly, it could not be considered that the applicant had been held in slavery in the traditional sense of that concept. As to servitude, that was to be regarded as an obligation to provide one’s services under coercion, and was to be linked to the concept of slavery. The forced labour imposed on the applicant (see above) lasted almost 15 hours a day, seven days a week. Brought to France by a relative of her father, she had not chosen to work for Mr and Mrs B. As a miNor, she had no resources and was vulnerable and isolated, and had no means of subsistence other than in the home of Mr and Mrs B., where she shared the children’s bedroom. The applicant was entirely at Mr and Mrs B.’s mercy, since her papers had been confiscated and she had been promised that her immigration status would be regularised, which never happened. Nor did the applicant, who was afraid of being arrested by the police, have any freedom of movement or free time. In addition, as she had not been sent to school, despite the promises made to her father, the applicant had no prospect of seeing any improvement in her situation and was completely dependent on Mr and Mrs B. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant, a minor at the relevant time, had been held in servitude within the meaning of Article 4.
Slavery and servitude were not as such classified as criminal offences in French criminal law. Mr and Mrs B. had been prosecuted under articles of the Criminal Code which did not make specific reference to the rights secured by Article 4. Having been acquitted, they had not been convicted under criminal law. Hence, despite having been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 4 and having been held in servitude, the applicant had not seen the perpetrators of those acts convicted under criminal law. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the criminal-law legislation in force at the material time had not afforded the applicant specific and effective protection against the actions of which she had been a victim. Consequently, the French State had Not fulfilled its positive obligations under Article 4.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant the sum claimed by her for legal costs.
© 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