CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 16 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11344/16 Marc PINGEN and Hannah PINGEN against Germany lodged on 24 February 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withdrawal of the applicants’ rights to decide where their children should live ( Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht ), and to take decisions regarding the children’s health ( Gesundheitssorge ) and schooling, and the transfer of those rights to the youth office. The applicants are members of the Twelve Tribes church ( Zwölf Stämme ) and lived, with their 3 children, born in 2009, 2009 and 2013, in a community of the church in Bavaria. The domestic courts, based on the reasonable risk that the children would be subjected to birching, withdrew parts of child custody and ordered the applicants to hand over their youngest son, so that he could be placed with a foster family. Due to the age of the son, he had not been previously taken into care. On 16 August 2015 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to admit the applicants’ constitutional complaint for adjudication without providing reasons (1 BvR 1589/15, served on 27   August 2015). The applicants complain mainly under Article 8 about the allegedly disproportionate decision of the domestic courts, the insufficient factual foundation of the decision and the unfairness of the proceedings before the family courts. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?