Legal representation of unaccompanied children


Country Report: Legal representation of unaccompanied children Last updated: 30/11/20


Swiss Refugee Council Visit Website

In Switzerland, unaccompanied children are entitled to asylum if they are deemed capable of judgment. The assessment of this capability depends on the maturity and the development of the child in question.[1] Usually, a person is considered as able to make a judgment at the age of 14. The Federal Administrative Court has stressed the importance of the right of the child to properly take part in all the decisions that concern him/her and clarified in a detailed manner how this should be put into practice during the personal interview.[2]

A representative, a so-called person of trust, is immediately to be appointed for each unaccompanied asylum-seeking child. The latter assists the unaccompanied child during the asylum procedure.[3] The Asylum Ordinance 1 specifies that the duty of the representative starts with the first interview.[4] This means that in all the procedures, the representative should be present in the first as well as the second interview. Also when a hearing takes place because the SEM does not believe that the person is a minor and is about to treat the person as an adult, a representative should be attending because the change of the asserted birth date should be considered as a decisive procedural step.

Until today, the duties of the legal representative are not precisely defined by law and are therefore not always clear in practice.[5] The Asylum Ordinance 1 specifies that the representative must have knowledge of the asylum law and the Dublin procedure. He or she accompanies and supports the minor in the asylum or Dublin procedure. The Ordinance lists a few examples of tasks that the representative must fulfil: advice before and during interviews; support in naming and obtaining elements of proof; support especially in the contact with authorities and medical institutions.[6] The idea is that the person of trust should support the asylum seeker in the asylum procedure, as well as in other legal/administrative tasks related to the asylum claim and to the minor’s situation in Switzerland (accommodation in the centre, attendance to school, health issues etc). In practice, as long as the minor stays in the federal asylum centre (maximum 140 days), the representative mostly accompanies him/her to the asylum interview or hearing. The child and the representative often only meet shorty before the interview and, in some cases, persons of trust cannot have direct access to the federal reception centres where minors are held. Often the translator of the SEM is asked for help with the explanation of the representative’s role. Under these circumstances there is hardly any time to build trust.

The child may then be transferred to a Canton, if s/he is moved to the so-called extended procedure and his/her asylum application is accepted or temporary admission granted. In these cases, the legal duties of the person of trust are passed on to other representatives, mostly social workers that operate within the different cantons. The discrepancies and different quality level of the care and support provided by the different cantonal offices has been highlighted in a report by the Conference of the Cantonal Directors of Social affairs committees.[7] The division of responsibilities between the persons of trust working in the Federal centres and the cantonal representatives is another sensitive issue. It must be added that the person of confidence is foreseen as an interim measure until child protection measures according to the Civil Code (such as appointing a guardian) are implemented. But unfortunately in practice, the person of confidence very often remains the child’s representative and no child protection measures are implemented.

In 2019, 441 applications were lodged by unaccompanied children, compared to 401 in 2018.


[1] Asylum Appeals Commission, Decision EMARK 1996/4, 9 March 1995.

[2] Federal Administrative Court, Decision E-1928/2014, 24 July 2014, available at:

[3] Article 17(3) AsylA.

[4]  Article 7(2-bis) AO1.

[5] Asylum Appeals Commission, Decision EMARK 2006/14 of 16 March 2006.

[6]Article 7(3) AO1.

[7]  Recommandations de la Conférence des directrices et directeurs cantonaux des affaires sociales (CDAS), 20 May 2016, available at:


Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection