Siliadin v. France

ECtHR (FRANCE)

 

Title:

Siliadin v. France

 

Court:

European Court of Human Rights

 

Date:

July 26, 2005

 

CRC Provisions:

Article 19: Protection from abuse and neglect

Article 32: Child labour

Article 36: Other forms of exploitation

 

Other International Provisions:

European Convention on Human Rights (Article 1: Respecting rights; Article 4: Prohibition on servitude)

Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour

Slavery Convention

Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery

 

Domestic Provisions:

Criminal Code, France (Article 225-13: Exploitation through labour; Article 225-14: Subjection to working and living conditions that are incompatible with human dignity)

 

Case Summary:

Background:

Siliadin, a 15 year old girl of Togolese origin, arrived in France with Mrs. D, a French national of Togolese origin, with a passport and tourist visa. It had been agreed that Siliadin would work at Mrs. D's home until the cost of her airfare had been reimbursed and that Mrs. D would enrol her in school and take care of her immigration status. Instead, Siliadin's passport was taken away and she was forced to work as an unpaid housemaid for Mr. and Mrs. D. She was later "lent" to Mr. and Mrs. B, who decided to "keep her" as an unpaid housemaid and child caretaker, working 15 hour days, seven days a week. She was not paid, not sent to school and her immigration status was not looked after.

 

After a neighbour alerted France's Committee against Modern Slavery, Mr. and Mrs. B's home was raided and they were charged with (i) obtaining the performance of services without payment by taking advantage of a person's vulnerability or state of dependence under Article 225-13 of the Criminal Code (France) and (ii) subjecting an individual to working and living conditions incompatible with human dignity by taking advantage of a person's vulnerability or state of dependence under Article 225-14 of the Criminal Code (France).

 

Mr. and Mrs. B were convicted of violating Article 225-13 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment each, seven months of which was suspended, a fine of 100,000 francs and ordered to pay 100,000 francs in damages to Siliadin. The Paris Court of Appeal overturned the convictions and acquitted the defendants. The Principal Public Prosecutor's Office refused to appeal the acquittal, however Siliadin appealed the civil aspects of the decision. The Versailles Court of Appeal ruled that Article 225-13 had been violated and awarded Siliadin EUR 15,245 for psychological trauma. In addition, the Paris Industrial Court awarded Siliadin EUR 33,049 in relation to arrears of salary, notice period and holiday leave. Siliadin subsequently made an application to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that France failed to comply with its positive obligation under Article 4, together with Article 1, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the "Convention") to put in place adequate criminal law provisions to prevent and effectively punish the perpetrators of slavery, servitude, or forced or compulsory labour.

 

Issue and resolution:

Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. The European Court of Human Rights found that France had violated Article 4 of the Convention and ordered France to pay Siliadin EUR 26,209.69 for legal fees. Siliadin did not make a claim for damages.

 

Court reasoning:

In accordance with contemporary norms and trends, States have a positive obligation under Article 4 of the Convention to criminalise and prosecute actions that hold any person in slavery, servitude, or forced or compulsory labour. "Slavery" and "servitude", however, are not classified as offences under French criminal law. Articles 225-13 and 225-14 of France's Criminal Code do not specifically deal with these offences; instead, they deal only with general exploitation through labour and working and living conditions that are incompatible with human dignity. Because of this, France's criminal law did not afford Siliadin with practical and effective protection. Despite being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 4 of the Convention, Siliadin was unable to see Mr. and Mrs. B convicted under French criminal law.

 

Excerpts citing CRC and other relevant human rights instruments:

II. RELEVANT LAW

46. (d) International Convention on the Rights of the Child, dated 20 November 1989 (entered into force in respect of France on 6 September 1990)

 

Article 19

 

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

 

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of

instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

 

Article 32

 

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

 

2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular:

 

(a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;

 

(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;

 

(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present Article.

 

Article 36

 

States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child’s welfare.

 

…

 

87. In addition, with particular regard to children, Article 19 of the

International Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989,

which entered into force in respect of France on 6 September 1990,

provides:

 

“1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and

educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental

violence, injury or abuse, ..., maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse,

while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care

 

of the child;”

 

 

Article 32 provides:

 

 

“1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic

exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to

interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical,

mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

 

 

2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular:

 

(a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;

 

(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;

 

(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present Article.”

 

…

 

143. The Court has previously stated that children and other vulnerable

individuals, in particular, are entitled to State protection, in the form of

effective deterrence, against such serious breaches of personal integrity (see,

 

mutatis mutandis, the judgments in X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March

1985, Series A no. 91, pp. 11–13, §§ 21–27; Stubbings and Others v. the

United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1505,

 

§§ 62–64; and A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 22; and also the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 19 and 37).

 

 

 

Notes:

In bringing her case, Ms. Siliadin was also assisted by the Committee against Modern Slavery, an NGO committed to fighting slavery and human trafficking (http://www.ccem-antislavery.org/). This was also the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights found a breach of Article 4 of the Convention.

 

CRIN Comments:

CRIN believes that this decision is consistent with the CRC. As recognised by the Court, States must take extra measures to ensure that children are not exploited in any fashion. This includes criminalising actions that would force a child to work in inhumane circumstances, as happened in this case. It is not enough for States to simply ratify human rights instruments like the CRC; they must set up systems to protect against violations and make channels available for all victims – including children – to enforce their human rights.

 

Citation:

Siliadin v. France, Judgement, merits and just satisfaction, App. No. 73316/01; IHRL 2866 (ECHR 2005).

 

Link to Full Judgment:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4406f0df4.html

 

This case summary is provided by the Child Rights Information Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.