CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 29 September 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40938/16 S.S. against Slovenia lodged on 11 July 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Her biological daughter was soon after birth placed in foster care. Within weeks from that the social welfare authorities initiated proceedings for withdrawal of the applicant’s parental rights. The courts upheld the social welfare authorities’ request finding that due to her illness the applicant would not be able to take care of the daughter, who was consequently adopted by the foster family.   The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the withdrawal of her parental rights on the grounds of her mental illness, which she considers to be an unjustified and disproportionate measure lacking any basis in domestic law. In particular, the applicant complains that the withdrawal of her parental rights and the subsequent adoption of her biological daughter permanently divested her of any family tie to her biological daughter. In the future, the applicant will not be able to request that her parental rights be restored, nor will she be able to have any contact with her biological daughter or any say in her upbringing.   The applicant also complains that the courts’ interpretation of section   116 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act in her case amounted to discrimination against people with mental illnesses, in breach of Article   14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair and under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic courts overstepped the boundaries of law, namely section 116 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act, by divesting her of her parental rights on the grounds that adoption would be the preferred long-term solution for E.