CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 August 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18925/15 Dirk WUNDERLICH and Petra WUNDERLICH against Germany lodged on 16 April 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the deprivation of certain custody rights and the subsequent placement of the applicants’ children in public care, after the applicants had consistently refused to send them to school. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the transfer of, inter alia , the right to determine the place of residence ( Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht ) to the Youth Office, ordered by the Darmstadt District Court on 6 September 2012, the forced separation of the applicants’ four children from their parents on 29 August 2013 and their subsequent placement in a foster home until 19 September 2013, necessary to protect the best interest of the children?   2.     Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons as to whether the well-being of the children was endangered by the applicants’ exclusively teaching them at home?