Y.F.C. and Others v. The Netherlands, Application no. (Application no. 21325/19), 21 April 2026

Facts:

The case concerned seven Venezuelan nationals who arrived in Curaçao by boat in April 2019 with the intention to apply for international protection. Upon arrival, they were arrested for irregular entry and placed in immigration detention, where they were served with decisions refusing entry, ordering their removal, and imposing three-year entry bans. The decisions were issued mostly in Dutch, a language the applicants did not understand. They subsequently lodged objections against their removal and detention.

The applicants were detained in different facilities, most were held in the “barracks for aliens”, an immigration detention facility located next to the Curaçao prison (SDKK), while others, including a minor applicant, were detained within the prison itself. They complained about the conditions of their detention and alleged risk of ill-treatment if returned to Venezuela. In April 2019, the ECtHR indicated interim measures under Rule 39 preventing their removal and subsequently indicated further interim measures concerning their conditions of detention.

On 9 June 2019, during a scuffle between detainees and prison staff, the latter used rubber bullets. Several applicants alleged that they sustained injuries as a result of the use of force and complained that no effective and independent investigation was carried out into the incident.

The applicants were subsequently heard in the objection proceedings and, on 14 August 2019, released from detention and placed under reporting obligations. Their objections against the detention and removal decisions were ultimately rejected by the Minister of Justice in December 2019, and no appeals were lodged against those decisions.

Before the Court, the applicants complained of excessive use of force during their detention and the absence of an effective investigation into their allegations; the inadequate conditions of detention, the lack of an effective remedy to challenge their detention and removal, and the allegedly collective nature of their expulsion under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.

Decision & reasoning:

Alleged violation under Article 3

The Court first found that only applicants 1, 2, 3 and 6 were directly affected by the incident, while the complaint was declared inadmissible in respect of applicants 4, 5 and 7 as manifestly ill-founded. (paras. 54–56)

(i) Procedural limb of Article 3 (effectiveness of investigation)

The Court reiterated that allegations of ill-treatment require an effective official investigation that is prompt, thorough, independent of the executive, and that the applicant should be able to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another. It found that the documents in the case file did not show that there was an effective and independent investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. It also noted that the incident reports did not qualify as effective since they were produced by security staff involved in the events, and there was no evidence that the applicants were involved in the investigative process. The Court therefore held that there has been a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb in respect of applicants 1, 2, 3 and 6. (paras. 60–63)

(ii) Substantive limb of Article 3 (use of force)

The Court reiterated that in allegations of ill-treatment, when the events at issue lie completely or in a large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof is shifted to the State. It also recalled that any use of force against persons deprived of their liberty must be strictly necessary in light of their conduct, and that the use of kinetic impact projectiles, such as rubber bullets, must be subject to adequate legal safeguards and clear operational limitations. (paras. 64–66)

In the absence of an effective investigation clarifying the events, it found that the Government had failed to show that the use of rubber bullets was strictly necessary and that there were not clear domestic safeguards governing the deployment of kinetic impact projectiles in such circumstances. Hence, the Court found a violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb in respect of applicants 1, 2, and 3. (paras. 67–72)

The Court declared the complaints concerning the conditions of detention under Article 3 inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4

The Court found the complaint admissible and reiterated that Article 5 § 4 requires detained persons to have practical and effective access to a remedy capable of providing a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention.

It noted that remedies under Curaçaoan law were not practically accessible to the applicants, that the detention orders were in a language the applicants did not understand, that they did not mention the possibility of interim relief. Furthermore, the applicants had no access to legal assistance or statutory legal aid. It therefore concluded that the applicants could not obtain a speedy judicial review of their detention and found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of all applicants. (paras. 98-110)

Alleged violations under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4

By contrast, the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 were declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. (paras. 113–116)

The applicants argued that the identical removal decisions issued upon arrival amounted to collective expulsion under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, but the Court noted that they were subsequently able to obtain an individual assessment of their claims and were not in fact removed collectively. Hence, it found that they could no longer claim to be victims of a collective expulsion and declared the complaint inadmissible (paras. 121–123).

Outcome:

The Court found a violation of Article 3 in its procedural limb in respect of Applicants 1,2,3 and 6, and a violation of Article 3 in its substantive limb in relation to the applicants 1,2 and 3;

It also found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of all applicants;

It held that the respondent State is to pay the applicant an amount of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to applicants 1, 2, 3 and 6 and EUR 1,625 (one thousand six hundred and twenty-five euros) to applicants 4, 5 and 7 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.