European legal and policy framework on immigration detention of children Time limits are usually the same for adults and children. Most EU Member States do not have any maximum time limits in place specifically for children who are held together with their families. There are, however, a few exceptions. In Luxembourg and in Sweden, children cannot be detained for longer than 72 hours.223 In exceptional circumstances, Swedish law allows the prolongation of detention by an additional 72 hours.224 In Bulgaria, children in families can be detained in special homes in exceptional circumstances for a maximum of three months,225 although reports suggest that this limit has not always been respected in practice.226 The Dutch Aliens Circular 2000 states that the maximum stay in the closed family facility pending removal is two weeks, but can be extended if they resist physically or if the parents start extra procedures.227 In Hungary, children with families can be detained for up to 30 days under the Asylum Act, whereas the maximum time for detention for other cases (adults) is six months.228 At least four EU Member States have shorter detention ceilings for unaccompanied children. In Austria, unaccompanied children aged 14–18 can be detained pending return for a  maximum of two months. 229 In the Czech Republic, unaccompanied children aged 15–18 awaiting removal and parents held with their children can be detained for up to 90 days under the Act on Residence of Foreign Nationals instead of the 180 days that is the maximum time for adults.230 In Finland, according to the 2015 amendment of the Aliens Act, unaccompanied children under the age of 15 can no longer be detained under any circumstances; unaccompanied children aged between 15 and 17 years may be detained for up to 72 hours once there is an enforceable decision on their removal from Finland. The period of detention can be extended by a further 72 hours for extraordinary reasons.231 In the United Kingdom, unaccompanied children may be detained only in a short-term holding facility for a maximum period of 24 hours (except 223 Luxembourg, amended Act of 28 May 2009 establishing and organising the Detention Centre (Loi du 28 mai 2009 portant création et organisation du Centre de rétention), Article 6(3), 29 May 2009; Sweden, Aliens Act, Chapter 10, Section 5. 224 Sweden, Aliens Act, Chapter 10, Section 5. 225 Bulgaria, Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act (Закон за чужденците в Република България), 23 December 1998, Article 44(9). 226 Vankova, Z. (Ванкова, З.) (2012), Специалните домове за временно настаняване на чужденци – quo vadis? (The special homes for temporary accommodation of foreigners – quo vadis?), Sofia, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. 227 Netherlands, Aliens Circular 2000 A (Vreemdelingencirculaire 2000 A), Para. A5/2.4. 228 Hungary, Act No. 80 of 2007 on Asylum (2007. évi LXXX. törvény a menedékjogról), Article 31/A (7). 229 Austria, Aliens Police Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz), 2005 as amended, Section 80 (2). 230 Czech Republic, Act on Residence of Foreign Nationals, Section 125(1). 231 Finland, Aliens Act, as amended on 26 June 2015 (Ulkamaalaislaki, Utlänningslag), Section 122. 60 where a child is being transferred to or from a shortterm holding facility).232 5.3.2. Establishing more regular reviews The right to a judicial review of the detention order is an essential procedural safeguard against arbitrary detention (Chapter 5). In addition, automatic periodic reviews by the administration or by courts reduce the risk of keeping migrants in detention for longer than necessary. Such automatic reviews are particularly important for children, as their mental or physical health can deteriorate when they are detained, requiring a reassessment of the necessity and proportionality of the deprivation of liberty. There are essentially two ways of implementing automatic periodic reviews. The first option is to impose detention for the time envisaged, for instance to implement a removal decision or effect a Dublin transfer, but provide regular periodic reviews. The second option is to allow detention only for a short time and extend it only if it is still warranted. This second is the approach of those EU Member States that set strict time lines, typically a month or less, for the first detention order, which can then be extended for additional short periods until the maximum length of detention is reached.233 For example, in Denmark, if the court finds the detention lawful, it will set a time limit that the court can extend later, but by no more than four weeks at a time.234 Article 15 (3) of the Return Directive and Article 9 (5) of the Reception Conditions Directive oblige EU Member States to review the validity of detention at reasonable intervals, either on application by the detained individual or ex officio. The directives do not define “reasonable intervals”. As good practice, the UNHCR Detention Guidelines recommend reviewing the necessity of continuing detention “every seven days until the one month mark and thereafter every month until the maximum period set by law is reached”.235 The European Commission Return Handbook indicates the time frame after which a judge should be involved: “a three monthly ex-officio judicial review may be considered at the limit of what might still be compatible with 15 (3)”.236 EU Member States have implemented different time limits to review immigration detention orders. In Austria, 232 United Kingdom, Immigration Act 2014, Section 5 (4). 233 See for example, France, Article L.552–1, L552–7 Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile or Luxembourg, Immigration Law Article 120 (3). 234 Finland, Aliens Act, Section 37.3. 235 UNHCR (2012), Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, para. 47 (iv). 236 European Commission, Return Handbook, 14.3. Regular review of detention, p. 83.