CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 mars 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 161 March 2013 B.B. and F.B. v. Germany - 18734/09 and 9424/11 Judgment 14.3.2013 [Section V] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Withdrawal of parental authority solely on strength of children’s uncorroborated allegations of violence: violation   Facts – The applicants were the parents of two minor children. At the age of twelve, their daughter alleged that both she and her eight-year-old brother had been repeatedly and severely beaten by their father. In May 2008 the District Court made an interim order temporarily transferring the applicants’ parental rights over their children to the Youth Office. In August 2008 it made a full care order divesting the applicants of their parental rights and in November 2008 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeal. The children were placed in a children’s home, where they remained for over a year without any personal contact with their parents. At the first meeting with the parents, which took place in July 2009, a year and a month after the children’s placement in care, the daughter confessed that she had lied to the authorities and that neither child had been beaten. The children were then returned to their parents. Law – Article 8: The withdrawal of parental authority had interfered with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life. The measure conformed to the requirements of domestic law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the two children. As regards the reasons adduced to justify the measures and the decision-making process, the Court noted that the national authorities had had the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned and enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation when assessing the need for a care order. They had been confronted with allegations that were at least prima facie credible of severe physical abuse which afforded sufficient reason to make an interim care order immediately to prevent further possible abuse. The interim order issued by the District Court in May 2008 had therefore not violated the applicants’ rights under Article   8. However, the only evidence relied upon by the District Court when making the full care order in August 2008 were the personal statements of the two children. There was no objective evidence of the alleged abuse. Further, while the District Court had the benefit of direct contact with the children, the Court of Appeal had based its assessment exclusively on the case-file, without hearing the children in person. The applicants, for their part, had relied on statements by the children’s doctors and by a psychologist, who had examined the boy several times without detecting any signs of abuse. The applicants had also pointed out that the children had regularly attended school and sports activities and it was not contested before the domestic courts that the daughter had a vivid imagination. These facts were capable of casting doubts on the truthfulness of the children’s allegations. When deciding whether to make the full care order, the domestic courts had not been under any pressure to render an overly hasty decision since the children had been placed in the safety of a children’s home. German family courts were under an obligation to carry out on their own initiative all investigations necessary to establish the relevant facts and the Government had not submitted any factual reasons which might have prevented the domestic courts from further investigating the facts before taking a final decision. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the serious impact the complete withdrawal of the applicants’ parental rights had had on the family as a whole, the domestic courts had not provided sufficient reasons for their decision. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 25,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 1,834.93 jointly to both applicants in respect of pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes