CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2018

.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 } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 18 December 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30879/17 Lena Jasmína HÝBKOVÁ and others against the Czech Republic lodged on 13 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant, Ms Lena Jasmína Hýbková, is the mother of the second applicant, Michael Gabriel Hýbek, and the third applicant, Matyas Gabriel Hýbek. The application concerns an alleged violation of their right to respect for family life on account of their forced and unnecessarily long separation (Article 8 of the Convention). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the decision of the Prague Municipal Court of 4 August 2016, according to which the second applicant and the third applicant remained in the institutional care, amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, taking into account notably the fact that their sister has been on the same day returned into the first applicant’s care who, at the time, had also cared for her new-born twin sons? If so, has such interference been “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of one of the aims permitted under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention? In view of all the circumstances, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? 2.     Have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to act in a manner calculated to enable an existing family tie to develop, to take any measures that can be reasonably expected with a view of reunification of a child with his parent(s) and to ensure that any separation of a child from his parent does not last any longer then strictly necessary (see Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, §   63, ECHR 2003 ‑ VIII; Neulinger and Shuruk v.   Switzerland [GC], no.   41615/07, § 140, ECHR 2010)?