CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2023

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 3485/21 Marius-Cosmin ANDRONACHE against Romania lodged on 23 April 2021 communicated on 13 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns removal of the applicant’s parental authority over two of his three sons (born in May 2014 and January 2016) and their placement for adoption, following the death of the children’s mother, on 26   October 2016. At that time, the applicant was serving a prison sentence for rape of the children’s older sister from the mother’s previous relationship (final decision of 8 April 2016, Braşov Court of Appeal). Between April and October 2016, the children had visited the applicant in detention at least on two occasions, with their mother. In 2018, the applicant requested and obtained recognition by a court as the children’s biological father. After the mother’s death, the two children concerned by the adoption procedure were placed with professional childcare assistants and the third child (born in June 2012), was placed in special care as he was severely disabled. On 13 September and 30 October 2018 the Braşov child protection authority denied the applicant’s requests to see his sons in detention. On 15   January 2021, relying on the conclusions of the child protection authority, the prosecutor’s office attached to the Braşov District Court also refused the applicant the right to see his sons. In a final decision of 4 March 2021 the Braşov Court of Appeal declared that the children were adoptable, ruling that the applicant’s opposition to their adoption was abusive, in the light of the nature of the crime that he had committed and of the fact that he was in detention and had five more years to serve from his sentence. On 15 December 2021 the two children were adopted. The applicant alleges a violation of his right to respect for his family life, Article   8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, in so far as he complains about the decision of 15 January 2021 of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Braşov District Court, did the applicant lodge an objection with the courts against the impugned decision of 15 January 2021?   2.     Can the applicant, in his capacity of biological father of his children, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, be said to have a right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     If so, has there been an interference with his right to respect for his family life due to:   (a) the decision of 15 January 2021 of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Braşov District Court (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no.   41418/04, §§   116 ‑ 22, ECHR 2015); (b) the decision of 4 March 2021 of Braşov Court of Appeal declaring the children adoptable (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no.   37283/13, §§ 202-13, 10 September 2019),   and was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?