European Court of Human Rights: judgement against Italy for the unlawful deprivation of liberty of an unaccompanied minor hosted in a reception centre for adults (case B.C v. Italy)

Introduction

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) assessed as unlawful the detention of B.C (application no. 42909/23), an Ivorian national born in 2008, who had been held for approximately two and a half months in C.A.R.A. (Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers) in Restinco,  Brindisi, Italy. 

The application was lodged on December 18th 2023, the Court made its decision on 9th July 2026, and on 3 September 2026 delivered its judgment and found that Italy had violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Timeline and Case Facts 

The applicant reached Italy on 3rd of August 2023 and stated his intention to apply for international protection leading to him being placed in the adult reception centre for asylum seekers “C.A.S.” (Centro di Accoglienza Straordinaria) of Carovigno, Brindisi. 

After the initial placement, the applicant declared that he was fifteen years old, having the picture of his birth certificate as the proof which led to the beginning of the process of age assessment by the authorities. 

The assessment concluded on 2nd of October 2023, with the results confirming that the applicant was a minor.

Four days after the assessment’s result, on 6th of October he was transferred to C.A.R.A Restinco, Brindisi, originally an adult centre which later was repurposed to host solely unaccompanied minors, with the head of the centre assigned as his provisional guardian. 

On 20th of December , B.C submitted a request to the European Court under the Rule 39 (an urgent request for interim measures) complaining about the deprivation of his liberty and about the poor conditions of the C.A.R.A.,  requesting  a transfer to a centre specifically for minors. Two days after the request, the applicant was transferred to the new facility exclusively for minors and six months later, was assigned a new guardian in June 2024. 

Parties’ Claims 

Relying on the findings of the National Independent Authority for Children and Adolescents (Autorità Garante per l’Infanzia e l’Adolescenza) concerning the C.A.R.A of Restinco, the applicant argued that the inability to leave the centre, and the iron gate accompanied by soldiers with batons, has affected him, and the rest of the minors residing there, amounting to an unlwful restriction of his liberty. B.C also complained that due to the absence of an officially appointed guardian, he had no official representation thus making impossible for him to challenge before a Court the deprivation of his liberty 

The Government denied the applicant’s claims by declaring that B.C was not detained in the centre and it only lasted long enough for them to find B.C a new destination. They rejected the applicant’s statement about the absence of the guardian and declared that the applicant benefited from a guardian by being under the provisional supervision of the centre’s director. The authorities also added that the outing of the minors could have compromised their safety due to the location of the centre and staff shortage because of the increasing number of unaccompanied minors arriving there. According to the authorities the detention centre was surrounded with high walls, and armed soldiers were deployed not to guard the children but because of the centre’s proximity to the C.P.R (Repatriation Centre). The authorities also declared that the minors were not able to leave the facility due to the staff shortage.

The Italian Government also objected to the fact that the case was being handled by a three judge committee instead of a seven judge chamber. The objection was rejected. as the Court had already decided on similar cases in the past in Italy and across Europe, therefore justifying the simplified summary procedure for cases concerning well-established case law. 

Court’s Reasoning concerning violation of Article 5 (right to liberty)

The Court found that the applicant had been placed in the C.A.R.A. by the Italian authorities and had remained there for approximately two and a half months without a clear and accessible legal basis, as well as a reasoned measure ordering his retention. It therefore held that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty.  

In line with its decisions on previous cases against Italy related to restriction of  liberty of  unaccompanied minors, the Court found B.C’s complaint of violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 of the ECHR (right to liberty) not manifestly ill-founded . The court based his assessment in accordance with its previous case law, such as: 

• Saadi (no.13229/03) v. The United Kingdom 2008 : Establishing a number of key  principles that a Government should follow for a lawful detention, e.g: Good faith of the authorities, proportionality, and correlation between the reason of detention and its place.
• Khlaifia and Others v. Italy 2016, (no.16483/12) : Emphasising that detention should have a clear legal basis and accessible information provided to the migrant in order to prevent Article.5 violation.
• J.A. and Others v. Italy 2023, (no.21329/18)  : Highlighting systemic deficiencies regarding reception and detention facilities across Italian hotspots, stressing the heightened vulnerability of underage individuals to fundamental rights infractions.
• H.D. v. Italy  2026, (no.41645/23): Again on unlawful restriction of liberty of an unaccompanied minor in a C.A.R.A.

Court’s Reasoning concerning violation of Article  3 (right to freedom from torture)

The Court proceeded with the assessment of the rest of B.C’s complaints under Article 3 regarding the living conditions in the centre where he was placed by the Italian authority.

B.C complained about poor living circumstances such as small overcrowded rooms, scarcity of hygienic products, lack of socialisation and recreational activities, and inadequacy of winter clothing upon arrival. B.C. supported the mentioned claims by submitting photographs to the European Court and referred to the findings of the National Independent Authority for Children and Adolescents (A.G.I.A)’s on the Restinco’s C.A.R.A. 

The Italian Government rejected these claims and objected that the applicant’s pictures had no official date and cannot be traced back to the C.A.R.A centre of Restinco. Therefore, the Italian Authorities provided the Court with a new set of photos, still undated, depicting the same room as the applicant’s photographs, just in better conditions.

Relying on the case of Khlaifa and others v. Italy, the Court recalled that ill-treatment and torture must reach a minimum level of severity to fall within Article 3. This depends on all the circumstances, mainly the duration of the treatment, its effects and, in some cases, the victim’s age and state of health. 

The Court noted that the facility was exclusively for minors and despite the centre’s staff shortage, they delivered Italian lessons, psychological interviews, traffic education, and external support. It also found the applicant’s allegations about clothing, hygiene products and food unsupported by the documents in the file, and it considered the list of items provided on arrival sufficient. 

Complaints about material conditions require precise and verifiable documentation, such as dated and verifiable evidence. In this case, the photographs from both sides were undated and several allegations were vague, which weakened the Article 3 violation complaint.

Weighing these elements together, the Court considered that the applicant's situation did not reach the minimum level of severity required by Article 3. It therefore declared this part of the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

Court’s Reasoning concerning violation of Article  8 (right to private life) and Article 13 (right to a legal remedy)

The applicant also complained about the failure to appoint a guardian Article 8 violation, and violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8. The Court held that, having regard to its findings under Article 5, it had dealt with the main legal questions raised and that there was no need to examine these complaints separately. 

As in the case of Valentin Câmpeanu  v. Romania  2014, (no. 47848/08), when the Court has addressed the central legal questions of a case, it needs not to examine related complaints separately. 

Court’s Assessment concerning damages and reimbursement of costs and expenses

B.C claimed EUR 30,000 for non-pecuniary damages and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses . The Court found  that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that these expenses were sustained in relation to the proceeding before the Court. Therefore, the Court solely awarded EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

Consequences for the Italian system

B.C 's case marks yet another failure by Italy not only related to the fact of placing an unaccompanied minor in a facility not designed to host a minor, but also violating their right to liberty. The Court’s judgement  implies for Italy to modify the legal framework concerning the facilities and the reception centres for unaccompanied minors to prevent the structural problems of B.C, H.D. (not final yet), and Darboe and Camara v. Italy (no. 5797/17) cases and others happening again.

In particular, the implications for  the Italian legal system consist of:

Early Independent and Proper Guardianship Appointment.
A guardian should be appointed as soon as an unaccompanied minor arrives at the reception system, and should not be part of the staff facility where the minor is housed. In this case the centre's director, who is in charge of the very facility that is restricting the minor’s liberty, acted as provisional guardian until June 2024. 

A legal basis for any restriction of movement.
Repurposing the center to provide for minors by an administrative decision is not sufficient. This type of informal arrangement does not suffice for prevention of restriction on minors’ liberty.

Conclusion

This judgment is in line with the Court’s previous case law stating that an unaccompanied minor shall not remain without a properly appointed and independent guardian. Moreover, the facilities hosting unaccompanied minors shall be specifically designed to host minors and the pure administrative change of reception centres originally designed for adults does not suffice. 

Once again the European Court’s findings highlighted that there are recurring problems due to Italy’s legal structural shortcomings.