CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } Published on 15 September 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 13435/24 and 14002/24 MZ against the United Kingdom and SV against the United Kingdom lodged on 7 May 2024 and 8 May 2024 respectively communicated on 29 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE These two applications concern the Convention compatibility of legislation in England and Wales and Northern Ireland governing the removal of parental responsibility (respectively, the Children Act 1989 and the Children (NI) Order 1995). In both jurisdictions parental responsibility is automatically conferred on married parents and parents who are in a civil partnership. Where parental authority has been conferred on a parent automatically, the courts have no jurisdiction to remove it. In contrast, where parental responsibility has been acquired by a parent by other means, it may subsequently be removed by the courts. The first applicant’s husband and father of her two children was physically, emotionally, psychologically and sexually abusive to her, and he behaved in a coercive and controlling manner towards her. The second applicant’s father – who was married to the second applicant’s mother at the time of his birth – was convicted of the rape and indecent assault of his stepdaughters and there were allegations that he had also abused his biological children. The applicants both applied unsuccessfully to the domestic courts to have the parental responsibility of their husband and father, respectively, removed. In doing so, they argued that the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the Children (NI) Order 1995 which prevented the removal of parental responsibility from fathers who were married at the time of their children’s birth were incompatible with their Convention rights. The first applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention, read together with Article   14 of the Convention. The second applicant relied on Articles 8 and   14 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the second applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life under Article 8 of the Convention by virtue of the fact that he unsuccessfully applied to the domestic courts for revocation of his father’s parental responsibility (see, for example, Mennesson v. France , no. 65192/11, §§   45 ss., ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   2.     In respect of the first applicant, do the facts in issue fall within the ambit of Article 8, given that parental responsibility is principally a status between a parent and a child?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination (on the basis of marital status, in respect of the first applicant, and birth status, in respect of the second applicant) in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 by the decision not to remove the parental responsibility of their husband and father respectively (see, for example, Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC], no. 3976/05, §§   67 ss., 2   November 2010 and Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, §§   47 ss., ECHR 2013 (extracts); see also McMichael v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   16424/90, §§   96 ss., 24 February 1995 and Smallwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   29779/96, Commission decision of 21   October 1998)? More specifically, was any difference in treatment on the aforementioned bases objectively and reasonably justified (see, for example, Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no.   20452/14, §§   135 ss., 19   December 2018   and Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no.   78117/13, §§   113   ss., 5 September 2017)?   4.     Given that the domestic courts had the power to make orders curtailing parental responsibility, and did so in respect of the first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father, have the applicants suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3   (b) of the Convention?