You are here
Home › Unaccompanied minor ›EDAL case summaries
The interview of an unaccompanied minor, conducted without any legal representation, violated domestic and international provisions regarding the right to a hearing and the best interest of the child.
Conditions in police stations do not justify prolonged detention, while the child’s extreme vulnerability should prevail over irregular status with necessary measures adopted to protect them. Domestic authorities had not done all that could reasonably expected to fulfil their obligation in light of their vulnerability.
The authorities violated Article 5 by automatically applying the protective custody regime, without considering any alternatives to detention or the requirement under EU law to avoid the detention of children.
Detention conditions in Greek police stations and living conditions in Idomeni Camp in northern Greece for five unaccompanied children were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. A further violation was found in respect of Article 5 § 1 regarding the “protective custody” of unaccompanied children in police stations.
When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.
The precarious living conditions in Calais and the failure of the French authorities to comply with judicial orders to protect the applicant, in view of his personal circumstances and young age, reach the threshold for a breach of Article 3.
Article 8 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation provides for a subjective right to family reunification, both for the applicant himself and for the family members present in the Member State responsible. This right is also justiciable to the extent that denial of transfer affects the rights to family unity and the best interest of an unaccompanied minor.
The expiry of the time limit for the submission of a take charge request pursuant to Article 21 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation, as well as for the submission of a request to review the rejection of a take charge request (so-called "...
The Court of Appeal found the "one-off" expedited procedure in place from 2016-2017 in Calais for unaccompanied children with family members, siblings or relatives in the UK and operated by the British and French authorities to fall below the requirements of procedural fairness as a matter of common law.
An asylum applicant who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must still be regarded as a “minor” for the purposes of that provision.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Unaccompanied minor filterUnaccompanied minor
- Best interest of the child 30
- Child Specific Considerations 27
- Vulnerable person 18
- Dublin Transfer 17
- Reception conditions 16
- Detention 12
- Credibility assessment 11
- Procedural guarantees 11
- Refugee Status 11
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 10
- Family unity (right to) 10
- Effective access to procedures 9
- Membership of a particular social group 9
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 9
- Burden of proof 8
- Family reunification 8
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 8
- Family member 7
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 7
- Material reception conditions 7
- Responsibility for examining application 7
- Standard of proof 7
- Accommodation centre 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Internal protection 6
- Obligation to give reasons 6
- Subsidiary Protection 6
- Individual assessment 5
- Protection 5
- Well-founded fear 5
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Persecution (acts of) 4
- Personal circumstances of applicant 4
- Personal interview 4
- Real risk 4
- Relevant Documentation 4
- Relevant Facts 4
- Request that charge be taken 4
- Request to take back 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Country of origin information 3
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 3
- Religion 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Actors of protection 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Delay 2
- Discrimination 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Race 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Armed conflict 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Education (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Return 1
- Serious harm 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 14
- Austria 11
- Germany 8
- Greece 6
- France 5
- Netherlands 4
- Luxembourg 3
- Finland 2
- Ireland 2
- Slovenia 2
- Spain 2
- Switzerland 2
- Belgium 1
- Slovakia 1
- Sweden 1