The applicant, A.D., an Ivoirian national, arrived in Malta on 24 November 2021 and he was placed in different detention centres.

The ECtHR observed that the case presented “an intricate set of facts, with overlapping procedures, different legal grounds, if any, for restricting the applicant’s liberties, and different detention centres - the use of which was sometimes unrelated to the reason behind the accommodation in such a centre.”

The court summarised the facts as follows:

“The applicant was accommodated in HIRC from the date of his arrival on 24 November 2021 until 30 December 2021 (with the interruption of a few days spent in hospital between 17 and 22 December 2021). The grounds for the measures applied were the (COVID-19) Quarantine Order (until an unspecified date), followed by the RMPO as of 10 December 2021. It is disputed whether during this period the applicant was accommodated with minors or adults, but it appears that during this period no change to his accommodation was made after the order of the Juvenile Court of 6 December 2021 ordering that the applicant should not be accommodated with adults.

- The applicant was accommodated in Zone 4, Block B, of the Safi Detention Centre from 30 December 2021 to 2 February 2022 according to the Government, or 30 January 2022 according to the applicant, during which time he was under the RMPO (until an unspecified date). It is disputed whether during this period the applicant was accommodated with minors or adults at least until mid-January 2022. On 13 January 2022 the applicant’s age assessment decision, at first instance, determined that he was an adult, but that decision was appealed against.

- The applicant was accommodated in Zone 8 of the Safi Detention Centre (aka the container) from possibly 2 February 2022 until an unspecified date, around June 2022. At the start of this period the applicant was still under the RMPO (until an unspecified date) but as of 10 February 2022 he was being detained on the basis of the detention order related to his asylum claim.

- It is unclear where the applicant was detained from the end of June until the date of his release in July 2022.”

The applicant complained before the ECtHR under Articles 3, 5(1) and 13 of the Convention, alleging that the conditions of detention were inadequate and unlawful, and that he had no access to an effective remedy.

The ECtHR found violations of Article 3, of Article 5 § 1 (concerning the detention period between 10 December 2021 and 10 February 2022 and between 10 February 2022 until July 2022). It also found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.

With regard Article 3 of the Convention, the court took into consideration the applicant’s vulnerabilities (presumed minor age and health situation) and the length of detention which lapsed for seven months to conclude that the conditions in which the applicant had been accommodated were not adapted to his needs and constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.

The court found a violation of Article 5 §1 for the detention of the applicant between 10 December 2021 and 20 February 2021 as it noted that the applicant did not oppose to the restriction of movement and that there were no indications of breach of Criminal Code for the need to adopt a detention order. Moreover, the court observed that in fact the authorities have changed the accommodation of the applicant several times, irrespective of any risk of contamination for others.

For the period from 10 February 2022 onwards, the court noted that the authorities did not ascertain at any moment whether the placement in immigration detention of the applicant, who was a presumed minor, suffering from physical and mental health conditions, was a measure of last resort for which no alternative was available. The court reiterated that applicants who claim to be minors should not be detained except as a measure of last resort, unless the claim is evidently and manifestly unfounded. The court did not find any indication of such age assessment prior to the detention order or of a proper assessment made during the review. Also, in view of the detention conditions, which constitute a breach of Article 3, the court concluded to the arbitrariness of the detention, contrary to the requirement under Article 5 § 1 (f).

Due to the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the detention conditions, the court found a violation of Article 13 jointly with Article 3 of the Convention.