The author of the communication fled with her family from Uzbekistan to the Netherlands. After their asylum application got denied by the Dutch authorities, she was told that she had lost her Uzbek citizenship because she had not registered with the Uzbek Embassy within five years of leaving the country. Various application for social and child benefits got rejected by various national courts. The author maintains that she has exhausted domestic remedies with regard to her claims of violations of her right to family life and non-discrimination and of the rights of her child. The author submits that,by denying her application for a child budget, the State party violated her and Y’s rights under articles 23(1), 24(3) and 26, read in conjunction with articles 23(1) and 24(1), of the Covenant, as well as Y’s rights under article 24(1) including minors. In light of the level of vulnerability of the child and the inability of the mother to provide for the child, the Committee concluded that the State party has the obligation to ensure the child's physical and psychological well-being are protected. By not doing so, the State violated the child's rights under article 24(1).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 23 (1), 24 (1) and (3) and 26, read in conjunction with 23 (1) and 24 (1)
The communication brought before the Committee concerned a mother and her family who travelled from Uzbekistan to the Netherlands as asylum seekers in 2000, where they were subsequently denied asylum status. Residing in the Netherlands without legal status until 2014, her child was born in 2008. In 2009 she received official notification that her Uzbek nationality had been revoked, rendering her and her child stateless. Barred from working, the mother applied for relief, housing, shelter and social assistance, money for her child, child benefits, child budget, a no-fault residence permit and a long-term child residence permit, but all applications and subsequent appeals were denied. In 2014, they were granted a one-year residence permit, but they relied on a third-party charity for housing and basic subsistence during their stay in the Netherlands.
Para 3.1: The author submits that,by denying her application for a child budget, the State party violated her and Y’s rights under articles 23(1), 24(3) and 26, read in conjunction with articles 23(1) and 24(1), of the Covenant, as well as Y’s rights under article 24(1) including minors. The author submits that the child budget is similarly protected under Art. 23 (1) of the Covenant, and that the
The Human Rights Committee found that the mother and child are vulnerable due to being stateless, the inability to work, the denial of applications for various types subsistence-related benefits and the limited charity on which they are dependent. The Committee also found that the State party had not specified the special circumstances necessary to apply for child budget as aliens. In light of the level of vulnerability of the child and the inability of the mother to provide for the child, the Committee concluded that the State party has the obligation to ensure the child's physical and psychological well-being are protected. By not doing so, the State violated the child's rights under article 24(1). The Committee consequentially recommended the Netherlands to reimburse the mother and child for the violation and provide them with access to minimum subsistence, including a reassessment of the application for child budget.
Recent decision, waiting for subsequent assessment and follow-up by Dutch State.