CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 residency issues, they fell into hardship amounting to a violation of their right to family life.12 3.2 Regarding the claim under article 24 (1) of the Covenant, whereas the State party maintains that children lack legal standing with regard to the child budget because it is paid to the parent, the child budget should in fact be regarded as a measure of protection required by Y’s status as a minor. Children are afforded protection because they are considered to be vulnerable on account of their age. As a result, when a claim to a child budget is at stake, the interests and rights of the child should be taken into account. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has acknowledged that family benefits such as general child benefits are intended to improve the position of the child.13 This reasoning should also apply to the child budget, and by deeming that the budget accrued to the author and not to Y, the Dutch authorities failed to consider Y’s rights or her situation as a stateless minor with no control over her immigration status. Y’s best interests should have been paramount in the assessment of the claim. 3.3 Concerning the claim under article 26, read in conjunction with article 23 (1), of the Covenant, the denial of the child budget was discriminatory with respect to the family life of the author and Y, because the State party treated them differently from its own citizens due to their status as irregular migrants. However, they did not choose to be stateless, as the author was only 11 years old when her parents fled Uzbekistan, Y was born stateless and both the author and Y were unable to leave the Netherlands due to this statelessness. Thus, there is no “weighty reason” – referring to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights – that could justify their different treatment. 3.4 The denial of the child budget on the basis of the author’s lack of a residence permit was in violation of article 26, read in conjunction with article 24 (1), of the Covenant, and was discriminatory with regard to Y, because the State party’s authorities did not make any distinction between the situation of the author and that of Y. This distinction is crucial, because the interest of the parent differs from the interest of the child. Children, especially very young children, are unable to influence their parents’ choices.14 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 24 July 2015 and 12 January and 9 June 2016, the State party provides additional information on two types of child allowances provided for under Dutch law: the child budget (kindgebonden budget), which is means tested, and general child benefits (kinderbijslag). Neither type of allowance is intended to serve as a general income support scheme. General child benefits were established under the General Child Benefit Act of 1962. Under this Act, insured persons who care for or support minor children are entitled to general child benefits. Such benefits are paid per household and represent a contribution towards related costs; recipients are not meant to fully reimburse these costs. General child benefits are not awarded on the basis of the parents’ income. 4.2 In contrast, the child budget, which was established under the Child Budget Act of 2007, is means tested, meaning that the amount of the budget is inversely related to the parents’ ability to pay the costs of raising and caring for children. The child budget may be paid to parents earning a low annual income, and its amount depends on the number of children and their ages. It accrues to the parent, not to the child. It was introduced as part of a social security provision after it had become apparent that many low-income families did not owe the minimum income tax required in order for them to benefit from the existing child tax credit. Aliens who have not been admitted to the Netherlands are not eligible for general child benefits or the child budget, due to the principle of linking social entitlements to residence status. 12 13 14 The author provides a letter from an individual, Z, dated 18 July 2011. It states that Z had been financially supporting the author and her family in The Hague for a few years, but was no longer able to assist them, except by offering them food. The author cites Supreme Court of the Netherlands, case No. ECLI:NL:HR:BW7740, judgment of 23 November 2012, sect. 3.5.10. The author refers to Derksen v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/80/D/976/2001). 5