CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 2010

.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. 130 May 2010 Kurochkin v. Ukraine - 42276/08 Judgment 20.5.2010 [Section V] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Order annulling adoption following the divorce of the adoptive parents: violation   Facts – The applicant and his wife adopted an orphan. The marriage subsequently broke down and the applicant brought divorce proceedings. The wife sought an annulment of the adoption on the grounds that the child had been violent towards her and that the applicant had refused to stop the attacks. Her application was contested by both the applicant and the child, who wished to continue to live together. Following the couple’s divorce (and the applicant’s remarriage) the domestic courts annulled the adoption and made an order for the child to be placed in care on the grounds that the applicant had failed to show that he was able to influence the boy positively and secure his normal personal development. The child nevertheless continued to live with the applicant, who was subsequently appointed the child’s guardian by the authorities. Law – Article 8: This was not a case of a parent being declared unfit to care for a child because of physical or mental illness or violent or abusive conduct. Instead, the reason given by the domestic courts for annulling the adoption was that the applicant lacked authority over the child and had failed to show that he could ensure its proper upbringing. That conclusion had been based on evidence that the child had been aggressive to the adoptive mother. However, she and the applicant had divorced, so there did not appear to be any reason why the annulment of the adoption order in her favour should also have necessitated the applicant’s separation from the boy. The domestic courts’ assertion that annulment could also be considered a sanction for the boy’s behaviour did not appear to be a relevant reason for splitting up an established family unit. Furthermore, the domestic authorities did not appear to have carried out a careful assessment of the impact which the annulment of the adoption might have on the child’s well-being or to have explored other less far-reaching alternatives that would be in line with the State’s obligation to promote family unity. Instead, despite the fact that both the applicant and the boy had expressed the wish to remain together as a family, the authorities had laid the burden of proof on the applicant to show that he was able to influence and bring up the child properly. The boy had continued to live with the applicant after the orders annulling the adoption and requiring the child to be put in care were made and the child-welfare authority had subsequently appointed the applicant the child’s guardian with responsibilities for his upbringing and development. These developments did not appear to support the domestic courts’ findings that the applicant was incapable of ensuring the child’s upbringing in a family environment. In sum, the findings of the domestic courts had not been supported by relevant and sufficient reasons such as to justify the interference with the applicant’s family life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect of non-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