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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 18 December 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 66015/17 Věra JÍROVÁ and others against the Czech Republic lodged on 2 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant, Ms Věra Jírová, and the second applicant, Mr Milan Jíra, are former foster parents of the third applicant, Mr Vladimír Bláha. The application concerns: 1.     alleged violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life on account of the prohibition of all contacts between them for four years and 2.     alleged violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of arbitrary assessment of evidence and deprivation of the applicants of the possibility to prove their allegations. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the relationship between the former foster parents (the first and the second applicant) and their former foster son (the third applicant) fall within the scope of “the family life” within the meaning of Article 8 §   1 of the Convention (see Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy , no. 16318/07, §§ 49-50, 27 April 2010; Kopf and Liberda v. Austria , no. 1598/06, §§ 36-37, 17   January 2012)? If so, has the prohibition of all contact for four years between the former foster parents and their former foster son amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life? And if so, has such interference been “in accordance with the law” (particularly as to the period after the third applicant reached the age of 18   years) 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.     As for the period before the third applicant’s 18th birthday, has the prohibition of all contacts between the applicants been in the best interest of the child (see Kopf and Liberda v. Austria , no. 1598/06, §§ 40-44, 17   January 2012)? 3.     Have the applicants had a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, have the first and the second applicants had a reasonable opportunity to prove their allegations?