CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .sCED59FE7 { width:36.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s67F68943 { width:15.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8344F63C { width:18.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s74C072D8 { width:21.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s44E4D79 { width:36.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE39BD1D5 { width:15.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4ADED56E { width:18.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC805EC11 { width:21.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 5 December 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9760/19 Eduardo VIEIRA NEVES and Others against Portugal lodged on 8 February 2019 communicated on 17 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for the protection of children and young persons ( processo de promoção e protecção de crianças e jovens em risco ) before the Family Court of Vila do Conde regarding the third applicant, D., born on 5 April 2016, who is the son of the first and second applicants. On 14 July 2016 D. was taken into public care and the first and second applicants were given contact rights with their son in the institution. A number of requests from the parents to have D. with them for festivals and birthdays were dismissed and replaced by visits at the institution. On 23 December 2017 D. was returned to his parents, under supervision by the social services. At the time the applicants lodged their application with the Court, the case was still pending at domestic level. Under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants allege that the domestic courts’ decisions in respect of D. being taken into public care and the conditions thereof had breached their right to family life, and that they had failed to examine the case promptly.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular:   2.   Did the national authorities rely on sufficient reasons to impose the protective measure of placement in public care and did they strike a fair balance between the interests at stake (see Gnahoré v. France , no. 40031/98, §   59, CEDH 2000 ‑ IX, Pontes v. Portugal , no. 19554/09, § 85, 10 April 2012, Soares de Melo v. Portugal , no. 72850/14, §§ 93 and 108, 16 February 2016; and Neves Caratão Pinto v. Portugal , no. 28443/19, § 109, 13 July 2021)?   3.     Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligations and take all necessary steps to ensure the applicants’ contact, which was necessary to maintain family ties between them (see Kutzner   c.   Allemagne , no.   46544/99, § 61, CEDH 2002 ‑ I;   Maire v. Portugal , no. 48206/99, §§   69, 70, ECHR 2003 ‑ VII; Pontes,   cited above,   § 75; Santos Nunes v. Portugal , no.   61173/08, §§ 66-68, 22   May 2012; Neves Caratão Pinto , cited above, §§   110, 135, 13   July 2021; Manteigas v. Portugal , no.   72850/14, §   12, 22   February 2022; and K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 178, 179; CEDH 2001 ‑ VII?   4.     Did the Portuguese authorities examine the proceedings with the expediency that is required in cases concerning family life (see Pontes, cited above, § 80; S antos Nunes, cited above, § 69 and Neves Caratão Pinto , cited above, §§ 116, 139)?   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Eduardo VIEIRA   NEVES 1960 Portuguese Póvoa do Varzim 2. Cláudia Patrícia EUSÉBIO   MIRANDA 1996 Portuguese Povoa do Varzim 3. Dinis EUSÉBIO MIRANDA NEVES 2016 Portuguese Póvoa do Varzim