CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s31290386 { width:117.7%; border-collapse:collapse } .s38AE08A1 { width:13.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCBB3324 { width:34.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF3D9A16F { width:24.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEC697A1E { width:27.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s784E78A { height:10.1pt } .s1B2CA6A8 { width:13.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC5B01AAF { width:34.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD45610E2 { width:24.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA3825D6 { width:27.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2B95642A { height:7.45pt } Published on 26 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38141/23 Balog and Others against Hungary lodged on 7 October 2023 communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the removal of a child from his foster family and his subsequent adoption. The first applicant, Mr Balog, and the second applicant, Mrs Balog, are a married couple. On 19 February 2019 the third applicant, L.M.B., who was at that time six weeks old and who had been abandoned by his mother, was placed with the first and second applicants as foster parents. The first and second applicants also fostered a 15-year-old girl and her son, E.F.L., the fourth applicant. The first and second applicants have been taking care of the fourth applicant since he was 3 months old, and from December   2020 they have been his sole caregivers, as the mother had left the household. On 25 November 2021 the guardianship authority declared the third applicant eligible for adoption. The first and second applicants declared their intention to adopt the third applicant; in the absence of a response from the child protection services they reiterated their request on 19 September 2022. On 17 November 2022 the child protection services informed the first and second applicants in a letter that their request for adoption was not supported, without giving any reasons. No remedy lay against this decision. On 22 November 2022 the legal guardian of the third applicant initiated the changing of the child’s place of care with immediate effect, on the grounds that the foster parents hindered the adoption process. On 9   December 2022, the first instance guardianship authority placed the third applicant in the care of other foster parents as of 14 December 2022. The first and second applicants were not heard by the authorities, and they were informed of the decision via email. Since then, the first, second and fourth applicants had no contact with the third applicant. The first and second applicants challenged the removal decision before the Debrecen High Court. They have submitted several requests for interim measures, the proceedings in this respect are still pending. Meanwhile, the government office initiated the supervision of the first ‑ instance decision, and on 13 March 2023 it held that although the change of the third applicant’s place of care with immediate effect had been unlawful, the removal of the child had been justified. The first and second applicants challenged this decision before the Debrecen High Court, requesting again interim measures of protection. In the course of the judicial proceedings the first and second applicants were informed that the adoption of the third applicant was authorised on 8   June 2023. On 1 September 2023 the fourth applicant was declared eligible for adoption. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the removal of the third applicant from his foster family with immediate effect and the refusal of the first and second applicants’ adoption request constituted an unjustified interference with their right to respect for their private and family life. They further complained that they could not participate effectively in the removal and adoption procedure, that their views and interests were not taken into account in the domestic proceedings, that the first and second applicants’ request for adoption was dismissed without reasoning and that their requests were not adjudicated in a timely manner. The applicants further complain under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that they could not challenge the removal nor the adoption of the third applicant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the first and second applicants claim a right to represent L.M.B. and E.F.L., the third and fourth applicants, in the proceedings before the Court (see Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy , no.   16318/07, §§   32-35, 27   April   2010, and V.D. and Others v. Russia , no. 72931/10, §§ 80-84, 9   April 2019)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, by the domestic authorities’ removal and adoption decisions?   In particular,   (a)     Did the domestic authorities perform a genuine balancing exercise between the interests of the third applicant and his foster family and were the removal and adoption orders justified by an overriding concern pertaining to the child’s best interests (see, inter alia ,   Jírová and Others v.   the   Czech Republic , no.   66015/17, §§ 120-22, 13 April 2023)?   (b)     Was the reasoning adduced by the domestic authorities relevant and sufficient (see   V.D. and Others v. Russia , cited above, § 112)?   (c)     Were the applicants involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to enable them to present their case and protect their interests (see   V.D. and Others v. Russia , cited above, §§ 112, 114 and 120)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints under Article   8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see, for the general principles,   C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   1365/07, §   55, 24   April   2008)?   4.     The parties are invited to inform the Court about any new developments in the case, notably about any decisions issued by the authorities in Hungary, and submit copies thereof.   APPENDIX Application no. 38141/23   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. János BALOG 1969 Hungarian 2. Jánosné BALOG 1968 Hungarian 3. L.M.B. 2018 Hungarian 4. E.F.L. 2018 Hungarian