04 Jul The placement of juveniles in specialised institutions must be periodically reviewed by the court, taking into account the best interests of the child

In the case of I.G.D. v. Bulgaria (application no. 70139/14, 07.06.2022) the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 5 § 4 (right to have the lawfulness of one’s detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case of I.G.D. v. Bulgaria (application no. 70139/14) concerned a minor who was placed in specialised institutions from 2011 to 2015 on the grounds of having committed a number of offences. At the time of his initial placement the applicant was 11 years old. In 2015, after the maximum time allowed by law, he was placed in “protected accommodation”.

The Court found that Bulgarian law did not provide for automatic periodic review, by a court, of the detention in issue. The Court saw fit to note that a measure depriving a child or adolescent of liberty, even if educational in nature, would have an impact on his or her physical, emotional, social and cognitive development. The Court therefore regarded it as paramount for the national legal system to offer sufficiently regular periodic review of the lawfulness of any such measure. Such periodic review should enable the courts to arrive promptly at appropriate decisions tailored to minors’ circumstances, thereby safeguarding them from any continued deprivation of liberty where other educational alternatives were available.

The Court also reiterated that the authorities were under a duty to ensure that detention of a minor was ordered only as a last resort, in the child’s best interests, and that it was aimed at preventing serious risks to the child’s development. Where this criterion was no longer fulfilled, the basis for the deprivation of liberty would cease to exist. Accordingly there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

The Court found that the authorities’ prime motive had been to punish the applicant for what they regarded as his deviant behaviour. It concluded that the Bulgarian authorities had not applied the best-interests-of-the-child test and that the proceedings in issue had not included safeguards proportionate to the seriousness of the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life and to the importance of the interests at stake. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.

Reference from the official website oft he European Court of Human Rights