CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2024

.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 } Published on 16 September 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25491/23 José Manuel MOREIRA TEIXEIRA against Portugal lodged on 9 June 2023 communicated on 29 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the father of two children (J. and F.) born in 2012 and 2016 respectively. The application concerns F’s emergency placement in public care. By two decisions of 11 November 2022, the Fafe Family Court ordered the children’s urgent and provisional placement in public care. On the same day they were placed in an institution. Pending the appeal proceedings against those orders, on 21 December 2022 the Fafe Family Court approved an agreement ( acordo de promoção e proteção ) concluded between the applicant and the children’s mother, according to which they were to be placed in care by their maternal grandmother for six months. The agreement indicated that the applicant had no intention to withdraw the appeal filed against the decisions of 11 November 2022. With a judgment of 23 March 2023, the Guimarães Court of Appeal held that it was no longer necessary to decide ( inutilidade superveniente da lide ) the applicant’s appeal against the order placing F. in public care because she had already left the institution. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant alleges unfairness of the proceedings in that he was separated from his daughter without any evidence and in the absence of a hearing. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, he alleges a breach of his right to respect for his family life arguing that the decisions regarding his daughter were disproportionate, arbitrary and did not respect F’s best interests. Lastly, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant claims that the judgment of the Guimarães Court of Appeal rejecting his appeal against the decision of the Fafe Family Court regarding his daughter F. breached his right of access to a court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In so far as the proceedings regarding the applicant’s daughter F. are concerned, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were sufficient reasons given for placing the applicant’s daughter in public care in proceedings which did not provide for an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Jussila v. Finland [GC], no.   73053/01, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2006-XIV, Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v.   Belgium , nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, §§ 60-61, 20 September 2011, Harisch v. Germany , no. 50053/16, §§ 33-34, 11 April 2019, and Adžić   v.   Croatia (no. 2) , no. 19601/16, §§ 55-56, 2 May 2019)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (not under Article 13 as alleged by the applicant) in the proceedings concerning F. (see Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-81, 5 April 2018)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’ s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:   Was the decision‑making process conducted in a manner ensuring due respect for the various interests safeguarded by Article 8, notably the best interests of the child (see 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)? Were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts to place F. into emergency public care relevant and sufficient in the circumstances?   The parties are requested to provide information on the children’s current situation.