Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of D.G. and S.G. v. Serbia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Serbia in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the right to family life. The case involved the placement of the applicants’ son, M., in foster care and the subsequent handling of their parental rights. The Court determined that the Serbian authorities failed to take adequate and timely steps to address the child’s continued placement in foster care and to ensure regular contact between the parents and their son. Additionally, the length of the proceedings to divest the parents of their parental rights was deemed excessively long, further infringing on their right to family life. The Court emphasized that the authorities’ lack of prompt response to the parents’ requests for more regular contact with their child adversely affected their relationship with him.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the placement of the applicants’ son in foster care, the lack of regular contact, and the length of proceedings to terminate parental rights. The facts section details the background, including the initial placement of M. in foster care in 2017 based on allegations of neglect. It describes the appeals and submissions made by the applicants, particularly the mother, regarding contact with her son and challenges to the foster care decision. The judgment then outlines the proceedings to divest the applicants of their parental rights, initiated in 2019, including expert reports and court decisions. It also covers remedies used by the applicants concerning the length of proceedings and actions to protect the child’s rights. The relevant legal framework and practice in Serbia are presented, including constitutional provisions and the Family Act. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the complaints, focusing on the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The merits of the case are examined, with arguments from both the applicants and the government, leading to the Court’s findings of violations of Article 8. Finally, Article 41 of the Convention is addressed, though no claim for just satisfaction was made.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Timely Action:** The decision underscores the importance of authorities taking prompt and appropriate action to address issues related to child placement and parental contact. Delays can have detrimental effects on family relationships.
* **Importance of Regular Contact:** The judgment highlights the necessity of ensuring regular contact between parents and children, especially when a child is in foster care, to maintain family bonds and facilitate potential reunification.
* **Fair Balance of Interests:** The decision reiterates the need for domestic authorities to strike a fair balance between the interests of the child and those of the parents, with the child’s best interests being paramount.
* **Adequate Assessment and Review:** The authorities must conduct thorough assessments of the family situation and regularly review decisions regarding child placement to determine if circumstances have changed and if reunification is possible.
* **Procedural Safeguards:** The decision emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards to ensure that parents are involved in the decision-making process and have access to effective remedies.
**** This case has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians, particularly in situations involving the removal of children from their families due to conflict or other crises. It highlights the importance of maintaining family connections and ensuring that any interventions by authorities are both necessary and proportionate.
