AFFAIRE R.M. ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE (Requête no 11247/18)
| Publisher | Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights |
| Publication Date | 9 February 2023 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0209JUD001124718 |
| Other Languages / Attachments | Decision in French |
| Cite as | AFFAIRE R.M. ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE (Requête no 11247/18), ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0209JUD001124718, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 9 February 2023, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,63ef83e74.html [accessed 18 May 2023] |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
ECtHR: Poland violated Article 5 ECHR by detaining children and failing to provide a remedy
On the 9th of February 2023, the ECtHR ruled in its judgment R.M. and Others v. Poland, no. 11247/18. The case concerned, RM and her three children, who were detained for seven months after their removal to Poland pending their deportation to Russia.
Following the acknowledgment of an Article 8 violation by the Polish government and their undertaking to compensate damages caused to the applicants, the Court struck this part of the application out. It further decided that claims under Article 3 regarding the length of detention in respect of children were included in the settlement on Article 8 and do not need to be assessed. The Court, however, stated that the detention of one of the children with psychosomatic symptoms did not violate Article 3 because he was accompanied by his family and his health was monitored by professionals.
The Court further noted that although the material conditions of reception in the centre of detention of the children applicants were correct, this structure constituted, a place of confinement. It finds that the national authorities did not consider whether the detention of the child applicants for a period of approximately seven months was a solution of last resort to which no alternative measure was available or that they have taken the necessary steps to limit the duration of the confinement of the applicant children to the strict minimum. The Court finds that the information communicated to the applicants did not explain the legal basis and reasons for their detention so that they had a fair opportunity to challenge the legality of the measure in question before a court. The ECtHR therefore finds a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the child applicants and of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.
Based on an unofficial translation within the ELENA team.
Source: ELENA Weekly Legal Update of 17 February 2023
