B.C., an unaccompanied minor, arrived in Italy on 3 August 2023 where he applied for international protection and was initially placed in the Reception Centre (Centro di Accoglienza Straordinaria – C.A.S.) in Carovigno, Brindisi. There he submitted a photograph of his birth certificate claiming to be 15 years old and the authorities subsequently conducted an age assessment which confirmed the applicant's minority on 2 October 2023. From 6 October 2023, the applicant was detained in Italy in an adult reception center for asylum applicants “C.A.R.A.” of Restinco, Brindisi, which was destined to exclusively host unaccompanied minors. The director of the center acted as the applicant's legal guardian. By interim request submitted on 20 December 2023 to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the applicant requested to be transferred in a centre for unaccompanied minors. In application of Rule 39, the ECtHR requested the Italian authorities to transfer the applicant to a facility destined for unaccompanied minors, which happened on 22 December 2023.

The applicant complained before the ECtHR under Articles 3 and 5 (1,2 and 3) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) alleging poor detention conditions and an unlawful deprivation of liberty in the C.A.R.A.

With regard to the deprivation of liberty, the court referenced from the outset its well-established case law emerging from its judgments in Saadi v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 13229/03, 29 January 2008), Khlaifia and Others v. Italy ([GC], no. 16483/12, 15 December 2016), J.A. and Others v. Italy (no. 21329/18, 30 March 2023). It also cited H.D. v. Italy (no. 41645/23, 9 April 2026) which is not final and concerned the restriction of liberty of an unaccompanied minor in a C.A.R.A..

Since the applicant, a minor migrant, was placed in a C.A.R.A. for two months and a half without a clear and accessible legal basis and in the absence of a reasoned measure ordering his retention, the court concluded that the applicant was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, in breach of the first limb of Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention. Relatedly, the court considered that, because the authorities could have not informed the applicant of the legal reasons for his detention or have provided him with sufficient information allowing him to challenge the de facto detention before a court, the absence of a clear and accessible legal basis for his deprivation of liberty constituted a breach of Article 5 of the Convention.

Under Article 3, the court reiterated that the assessment of ill-treatment, which must attain a minimum level of severity, depends on all the circumstances of the case, primarily the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. It noted that the parties disputed the material conditions in the reception center and cited the judgment in Darboe and Camara v. Italy (no. 5797/17, 21 July 2022) concerning the conditions of accommodation in respect of minors. Applying these principles in the present case, the court noted that the applicant's photographs lacked a date or location and overall did not explicitly describe the conditions therein. In addition, the applicant's allegations relating to improper food, clothes and hygiene were found vague and unsubstantiated. The court also noted that during his stay of 2 months and a half the applicant had access to psychological support, educational activities and Italian language classes. In this context, the court concluded to no violation of Article 3 as the applicant's situation did not reach the threshold of severity required to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment.