Salimou Diakitè, an Ivorian national, reached Italy on 29 January 2017 and was transferred to the hotspot of Trapani. He declared that he was a minor and submitted as evidence a birth certificate. He was provided with a healthcare card which noted that he was a minor. On 2 February 2017 the applicant underwent a medical examination for age assessment, which determined that he was at least eighteen and so he was transferred to the Red Cross adults’ reception centre in Rome, Via Ramazzini. Through a representative, he repeatedly asked to be transferred to a reception centre for minors and was transferred to such a centre on 20 June 2017. He underwent another age assessment procedure which determined that he was between seventeen and eighteen years old, so he was deemed a minor. On 1 July 2017, he was transferred to a minor First Aid Centre in Pomezia and on 13 August 2017 to another minor centre in Rome. On 17 July 2017 he was appointed with a guardian and later on he was granted asylum.

Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained under Articles 3 of the Convention about the reception conditions in the Red Cross centre which was allegedly overcrowded and had unhealthy conditions.

He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the failure of the authorities to recognise his status of unaccompanied minor and their lack of a prompt appointment of a legal guardian.

The court also found a violation of Article 8, noting that the authorities did not act with reasonable diligence and did not comply with their positive obligation to ensure the right to respect for private life. It referred to the judgment in Darboe and Camara v Italy (No 5797/17) and held that the appointment of a legal representative or guardian, access to a lawyer and informed participation in the age-assessment procedure of the person whose age was in doubt were safeguards that needed to be provided to the applicant. The court noted that in the present case, although the authorities transferred the applicant to a minors’ centre immediately after the request of the representative, the applicant did submit a birth certificate which showed that he was a minor and he was not provided with the minimum procedural guarantees. The court highlighted that the principle of presumption of minor age is an inherent element of the protection afforded to a foreign unaccompanied individual declaring to be a minor.

Under Article 3, the court noted that the material conditions did not amount to the level of severity required by this provision and that the applicant formed close ties with the educators in the centre. The court dismissed the complaint under Article 3 as manifestly ill-founded.