CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 30 May 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13437/22 T.A. against Switzerland lodged on 9 March 2022 communicated on 12 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to authorise the adoption of a child. The applicant was born 1967 in Ethiopia. She is a Swiss national and resides in Switzerland. In 2016 she adopted an infant of unknown origin in Ethiopia and brought it to Switzerland, despite the Swiss authorities having previously refused to issue a visa for the child. On 3 April 2017 the applicant made a request to the Swiss authorities to allow the adoption. The request was rejected. The courts ruled that the legal requirements for an adoption had not been met, notably regarding the age difference between mother and child. Lastly, the Federal Supreme Court considered that it was not necessary to examine if the adoption would be in the child’s best interest since the origin of its relationship with the applicant in Switzerland was based on an illegal act which had presented the authorities with a fait accompli . The applicant complained under Article 8, arguing that a de facto family life within the meaning of the Article existed between her and the child.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the situation complained of? If yes, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her family or private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention by rejecting the request for an adoption (see, among other authorities, Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, 24 January 2017)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.     The parties are asked to specify what was the impact of the domestic courts’ decision on the child’s situation. In particular, does the child still reside with the applicant? Is the guardianship ordered by the Swiss authorities still in effect? What is the child’s current legal status in Switzerland?