CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 mars 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2CA6B0A7 { height:12.05pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2D4DB0A7 { height:12.75pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)9 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Venema against Netherlands   (Application No. 35731/97, judgment of 17 December 2002, final on 17 March 2003)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the authorities’ unjustified failure to allow the applicants to participate in the decision-making process having led to a provisional placement of their daughter into public care (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:   - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)9   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Venema against Netherlands     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a breach of the right of the applicants (parents and their minor daughter) to respect for their family life in that they were not involved in the decision-making process before the Child Welfare Board and the Juvenile Judge which led, in 1995, to the adoption of provisional orders for the daughter to be placed away from her parents.   The European Court considered that this measure, taken on account of the mother’s alleged psychological problems which, in addition, had not been properly substantiated, formed the basis of the regrettable separation of the parents and their daughter for a period of five months and eighteen days. For the Court, it was crucial for the parents to be able to put forward their own point of view at some stage before the making of the provisional order (violation of Article 8).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 15   000 EUR 22   475 EUR 37   475 EUR Paid on 11/02/2003   b) Individual measures   After a separation of five months and eighteen days, the family was reunited on 22 May 1995. The consequences of the violation found have been redressed by the European Court through the award of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages suffered.     II.   General measures   The procedures followed by the Child Welfare Board were radically changed and new rules were laid down in a policy framework “Standards 2000”, an updated version of which entered into force on 1/05/2003. The new procedures provide inter alia the involvement of parents in the decision-making process concerning the placement of children into care as well as an intervention of a behavioural psychologist and a legal expert in child protection cases. As a matter of course, the Child Welfare Board now involves the parents of the child in its investigations; it may deviate from this rule only in highly exceptional circumstances and it always consults experts from different disciplines before doing so. The policy framework is a binding instruction from the Minister of Justice to the Child Welfare Board.   Moreover, the European Court’s judgment was published broadly and disseminated.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Netherlands have thus complied with their obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.