CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 68 October 2004 I. and U. v. Norway (dec.) - 75531/01 Decision 21.10.2004 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Refusal to allow access of two elder sisters to their biological sister: inadmissible The applicants are the elder daughters of two parents who suffer from mental illness. In 1993, the applicants were placed in a foster home because of the parents’ inability to provide proper care for them. In 1997, a third daughter, X., was born whilst the mother was committed to a psychiatric hospital. The authorities immediately placed X. in a different foster home to that of her sisters and deprived the parents of parental responsibilities and access in respect of her. The parents did not dispute compulsory public care of X. from her birth but appealed to the courts that cutting off X. from her biological parents, and in particular not permitting their elder daughters access to X., was unjustified. The courts, at two levels of jurisdiction, dismissed the parents’ claims that the elder daughters should have an independent right of access. They found that with a view to X.’s adoption and safe upbringing, it was in her best interest to cut off all bonds with the biological parents and that it was impossible to achieve that goal without refusing access also for the sisters. In 2004, the authorities authorised X.’s adoption by her foster parents. The applicants complain that the refusal to grant them access to their younger sister entailed an interference with their family life. Inadmissible under Article 8: The Court had doubts as to whether there existed a “family life” in the sense of Article 8 between the younger child and her biological family at the time when the authorities refused their access to her. The elder sisters had long since been separated from their parents and had never met their younger sister. Even proceeding on the assumption that the contested measure had to a degree amounted to an interference with the “family life” of the elder sisters, it had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the best interests of the child. As to the necessity of the interference, the weak bonds between the applicants and their younger sister, as well as the latter’s psychological vulnerability which had been medically certified, were factors to be given particular attention. Granting access to the older sisters could not have been envisaged without exposing the younger child to contact with her biological parents, which was potentially damaging for her mental health and well-being and likely to disturb her stable conditions in the foster home. Against this background, the interests of protecting the younger child’s situation in the foster home carried greater weight than the applicants’ interest in being granted a right of access to her. The measure could thus be seen to be “necessary” in the light of the interests of the child: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes