H.D., an unaccompanied minor from Burkina Faso, arrived in Italy on 24 June 2023. He was immediately placed in the adult reception centre and centre for asylum seekers, Sant'Anna C.A.R.A. Regional Hub in Isola di Capo Rizzuto, Crotone, where he was detained for approximately five months, until 6 December 2023. His age was not questioned. The applicant claimed that he was unable to leave the centre during that time. On 5 December 2023, the ECtHR ordered the Italian Government under Rule 39, interim measure, to release the applicant and transfer him to a centre for unaccompanied minors. The applicant claimed that the conditions in the Sant'Anna centre were inadequate due to overcrowding (800 people, including 200 minors, while the capacity was of 641 people), lack of separation from and contact with adults, lack of adequate facilities, poor material and hygienic conditions, and lack of possibilities to leave the centre and to contact his lawyer.

The applicant complained before the ECtHR under Articles 3, 5(1), 5(2) (right to be informed promptly, in a language which the detainee understands, of the reasons for arrest), 5(4) (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and 13 of the European Convention, about the conditions in which he was held, claiming that they were inadequate, not fit for minors, overcrowded and unhygienic, that there was no clear legal basis for his detention, and that he had no effective remedy for his complaints.

Article 5(1) and (2) of the European Convention

The court noted that the applicant's entry was not refused and there was no order for repatriation issued against him, but on the contrary, he was granted a residence permit. Given these aspects, the court observed that Article 5(1)(f) (lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country and detention with a view to deportation or extradition) did not apply in this case. In the absence of any other legal ground for the applicant's detention, the court concluded that it was not justified under Article 5(1)(f). Furthermore, in the absence of a clear and accessible legal basis for detention, the court considered that the authorities could not have informed the applicant of the legal reasons for his deprivation of liberty or provided him with sufficient information in that regard, thus finding a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention.

Article 5(4) of the European Convention

The court noted that in Italy, the applicant lodged an urgent application complaining about his detention on 19 October 2023 and that such a request was particularly urgent considering his status of unaccompanied detained minor. The court observed that the Catanzaro District Court took two months to schedule a hearing, subsequently postponed and examined the case four months after the initial request when the applicant was already released.

The court highlighted that the applicant's release and a finding of the case being ‘devoid of purpose' did not exonerate the state from its responsibility under Article 5(4). Thus, the court found that the domestic proceedings were not sufficiently expeditious to meet the standard of “speediness” of judicial review under Article 5(4), therefore concluding to a violation of this provision.

Articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention

The court observed that the general principles concerning the treatment of people held in immigration detention are set out in its previous case law in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Grand Chamber, 30696/09, 2011) and, in respect of minors, in Tarakhel v Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 29217/12, 2014), Darboe and Camara and M.A. v. Italy.

Regarding detention with adults, the court reminded its case law in Darboe and Camara, where it found that it was problematic to hold an applicant for four months in a centre with adults before ordering a transfer to a migrant centre for minors (see also Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v Belgium, 13178/03, 2006).

The court highlighted that it was relevant to assess the manner in which the separation from adults was effectively implemented, the conditions in the premises for the accommodation of children (whether specific services for minors were provided), in combination with other factors, such as the applicant's age and the length of stay. The court also emphasised that although the material conditions would per se not breach Article 3, a violation could still be found considering the duration of detention.

In this case, the applicant had submitted reports which showed that even though unaccompanied minors were in principle housed in designated areas of the centre separately from adults, in practice the separation was not effectively implemented and they actually lived in close contact without restrictions and no specific services were offered to minors, such as dedicated educational, recreational or psychosocial support. In addition, a report of the National Guarantor showed that on the day of their visit to the centre, the area designated to house minors was used as a “mixed module” where adults were also hosted.

Thus, the court concluded that the minors' material conditions within the Sant'Anna centre in terms of accommodation, sanitary facilities, and daily routines did not differ from those provided to adults, and were also aggravated by the impossibility of leaving the centre.

Furthermore, while the Government referred to improvements to the centre, it merely authorised future increases of staff, which confirmed the insufficiency of services at the time of the applicant's stay.

Thus, the court concluded that the applicant was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment during his stay in the Sant'Anna centre, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.