CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 January 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 11663/25 Samantha Jacoba VOS against the Netherlands lodged on 11 April 2025 communicated on 11 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged deficiencies in the decision-making process regarding the removal of the applicant’s two young children from her care. The children had been placed under guardianship of a certified youth protection institution ( Gecertificeerde Instelling – hereinafter “the GI”) since shortly after their births, and lived, with the applicant, in supported housing. After staff in this facility had expressed concerns about the children’s wellbeing, the GI requested, via an urgent procedure, permission from the children’s judge to change the children’s residence, on the basis of Article   1:336a of the Civil Code ( Burgerlijk Wetboek) . The children’s judge granted the GI’s request on 22 May 2023, without hearing the applicant, and the children were removed on the same day. At a subsequent hearing on 1 June 2023, the children’s judge indicated that no ‘very good reasons’ had been identified for reversing the decision taken on 22   May 2023, which she considered a definitive, rather than a provisional, decision. On appeal the applicant argued that the decision to permit the children’s residence change without hearing her first lacked a legal basis. The Court of Appeal, by judgment of 5 December 2023, considered that the interest of a child may require, as was the case at hand, that a court takes a decision without prior oral hearing, even if there is no specific legal basis (such as Article   800(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure) for that request. The court further held that the decision could be based on Article   1:336a of the Civil Code and that such a decision was not amenable to appeal. In her appeal on points of law the applicant contested this interpretation of the law and also argued that by not hearing her prior to the decision, she had been disadvantaged and not been able to fully present her case, in breach of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. The Supreme Court, by ruling of 20 December 2024, dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. As a general remark ( obiter dictum ), it added that a children’s judge who heard a parent after a child protection measure had been taken which had interfered with their family life as protected by Article 8 of the Convention, must take the parent’s position fully into account in his review of the initial request for that child protection measure. The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the decision to change her children’s residence was not taken in accordance with the law. She further complains, under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, that the procedure as a whole did not meet the standards stemming from these Articles, as she had not been properly heard on the decision to change her children’s residence and there had been no judicial review of that decision. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision to change her children’s residence constitute a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8?   2.     Did the decision-making process comply with the standards emanating from Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention (see Strand Lobben and   Others v.   Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 212, 10 September 2019)?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 6 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?