003-4332349-5192495

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 122 (2013)   18.04.2013   Decision to revoke adoption based on unproven suspicion of   child abuse was unjustified   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Ageyevy v. Russia (application   no. 7075/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   Five violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   European Convention on Human Rights, on account of:   the decision to revoke the adoption of the applicants’ children; the applicants’ inability to   review the authorities’ position concerning access to their children between 31 March   and 3 June 2010; the actions of the officials of the hospital where their adoptive   son was treated; the Russian authorities’ failure to investigate the unauthorised   disclosure of confidential information on the adopted status of the applicants’ son; and,   the Russian courts’ failure to protect Ms Ageyeva’s right to reputation in the defamation   proceedings against a publishing house;   and no violation of Article 8 on account of the initial removal of the applicants’   adoptive children.   The case concerned a married couple’s complaint about the removal of their two adopted   children and the revocation of the adoption following an incident when their son was   burnt at home and had to go to hospital for treatment.   Principal facts   The applicants, Anton Ageyev and Larisa Ageyeva, husband and wife, are Russian   nationals who were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in the village of   Korobovo in the Leninskiy District of the Moscow Region. Having lost their biological son,   who had died a few years earlier from a severe illness, the couple adopted two small   children (a boy and girl, born in 2005 and 2006 respectively) in March 2008.   Following an incident on 20 March 2009, when the boy was badly burnt at home and had   to go to hospital for treatment, the authorities suspected abuse and the children were   removed from their parents on 29 March 2009, eventually being placed in a foster home.   According to the applicants, their son had been scalded when he had knocked over an   electric kettle and then hurt himself when falling down some stairs. They challenged the   removal order before the courts, but it was eventually upheld in April 2009. From 31   March 2009 to 3 June 2010, the applicants did not have any access to the children. After   that, they were given permission to visit, but the children have remained in the foster   home to date.   In June 2009, the couple’s adoption of the children was revoked by the district court,   which based its decision in particular on the finding that the parents had failed to look   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   after the children’s health - relying on a medical report from the hospital indicating that   both children had a number of untreated illnesses - and on the fact that a criminal   investigation had been lodged against the applicants in respect of the injuries the boy   had sustained. The decision to revoke the adoption was eventually upheld in August   2009.   According to the applicants, during their son’s stay in hospital in March 2009, the   hospital administration allowed a number of people, including journalists and an   assistant to a member of the Russian State Duma, to gain access to the boy, to   interview him and to take pictures of him. In March and April 2009, a number of articles   were published in several national media about the case, displaying photos of the boy,   indicating his and his parents’ full names and suggesting that the boy’s injuries had been   caused by ill-treatment at the hands of his parents. Some articles alleged in particular   that the boy had been repeatedly ill-treated by his mother, that she had been drunk   during the incident in March 2009 and that she was a cruel and sick person.   In November 2009, the applicants requested the authorities to open criminal   proceedings in respect of a breach of secrecy concerning the adopted status of their   children. After the complaint had initially been joined to the criminal proceedings in   connection with the alleged ill-treatment of the boy, a separate investigation was opened   in December 2010. Subsequently suspended and reopened, the investigation remains   pending. Ms Ageyeva also unsuccessfully brought defamation proceedings against the   publishing house of one of the newspapers.   In November 2010 Mr Ageyev was acquitted of certain charges against him and the   prosecution dropped the other charges; Ms Ageyeva was convicted of non-fulfilment of   duties relating to the care of minors as well as intentional infliction of mild harm to   health and sentenced to one year and eight months’ correctional work.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants complained about the sudden removal of their adopted children, about   the revocation of the adoption and their being refused access to the children from 31   March 2009 to 3 June 2010. Furthermore, they alleged a breach of their privacy on   account of: the conduct of hospital officials who provided journalists with access to their   son and with photographs and medical information about him; the unauthorised   disclosure of confidential information concerning their son’s adopted status in the media;   and, the failure of the Russian courts to protect their reputation against the factually   incorrect and defamatory media reports. The applicants relied in particular on Article 8.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 January   2010.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   Erik Møse (Norway),   Ksenija Turković (Croatia),   Dmitry Dedov (Russia),   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   It was undisputed between the parties that the removal of the applicants’ children in   March 2009 had constituted an interference with their right to respect for their family   life. The Court found that that interference had been in accordance with the law, namely   the relevant provisions of the Russian Family Code, and that it had pursued a legitimate   aim, as it had aimed to protect the children’s “health and morals” for the purpose of   Article 8. Given that the boy had been injured in his parents’ house and that criminal   proceedings had been brought against them, the Court could accept that the authorities   had reasonably considered that placing the children in public care for some time was in   their best interest. Furthermore, the Russian courts, ruling at two levels of jurisdiction,   had reviewed the removal orders and had given consideration to all relevant   circumstances. The applicants had been represented by counsel and had been able to   contest any evidence against them. The Court therefore found that there had been no   violation of Article 8 on account of the initial removal of the children from their   parents.   The decision to revoke the adoption had been in accordance with Russian family law and,   as the initial removal of the children, had pursued a legitimate aim for the purpose of   Article 8. However, the Court observed that the Russian courts had made a superficial   assessment of the allegation that the applicants had failed to look after the children’s   health. The courts had simply enumerated the diseases with which the children had been   diagnosed after their removal, without giving explanations as to their origin or examining   the extent to which the parents were responsible for each health problem.   Furthermore, the Russian courts had not sufficiently taken into consideration that all   post-adoption reports from the relevant authorities had unanimously praised the   conditions in which the children lived with the family and had not mentioned any medical   supervision issues. The Russian courts had only mentioned the boy’s injuries and the fact   that a criminal investigation was pending without examining any evidence. While the   Court could accept that the suspicion of child abuse had justified the temporary removal   of the children, it could not find that that suspicion alone was sufficient for the far-   reaching and irreversible decision to revoke the adoption. There had been no assessment   of already established family bonds between the applicants and the children and the   potential emotional damage to them that might result from breaking those bonds.   Eventually, the criminal proceedings had ended with the acquittal of Mr Ageyev and a   conviction of Ms Ageyeva of non-fulfilment of duties only in respect of the incident of   March 2009, while all other charges had been dropped. In the light of those   considerations, the Court concluded that the court decisions revoking the adoption had   not been sufficiently justified for the purpose of Article 8. There had accordingly been a   violation of Article 8 on account of the revocation of the adoption.   The Court moreover found a violation of Article 8 on account of the applicants’   lack of access to the children for one year and two months. That situation had been   an automatic consequence of the decision to revoke the adoption, for which the   authorities had failed to advance sufficient reasons.   The Court found it established, based on the parties submissions and the evidence given   by the hospital’s doctors in the criminal proceedings against the applicants before the   Russian courts, that: doctors and officials of the hospital had taken photographs of the   applicants’ son for non-medical purposes; they had passed them on to the assistant of a   member of the Duma; they had informed several media crews about the boy’s identity;   and, they had given them direct access to him and to medical information concerning his   condition. All those actions had been taken without seeking the authorisation of, or   informing, the applicants. The relevant authorisations had been made by the head of the   hospital, who had acted in his capacity as an official under the authority of the   Department of Healthcare of the City of Moscow. The Court therefore found that the   Russian State was responsible for that conduct. However, in their submissions before the   Court, the Government had not demonstrated that those actions had any basis in   Russian law. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 8 on account of the   conduct of the hospital officials.   The alleged unauthorised communication of confidential information about the adopted   status of the applicants’ son concerned an action which was criminal under Russian law.   Nevertheless it had taken the authorities more than a year to react to the applicants’   complaint. They had suspended the investigation without having questioned the most   obvious witnesses, namely the journalists involved, officials of the district authorities and   of the hospital. According to the information available to the Court, the investigation had   not advanced any further since having been reopened. The Court therefore concluded   that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the unauthorised   disclosure of confidential information regarding the adopted status of the   applicants’ son, in violation of Article 8.   Finally, the Court found a violation of Article 8 on account of the Russian courts’   failure to protect Ms Ageyeva’s right to reputation in the defamation proceedings   against the publishing house concerning the articles describing her alleged ill-treatment   of her son. Ms Ageyeva’s complaints about the media reports, in which she could be   identified, fell within the scope of her “private life” for the purpose of Article 8. The Court   was prepared to accept that the subject matter – involving a suspicion of domestic   violence of an adopted child – could be considered important to the public. However, any   reporting about the incident should have taken into account Ms Ageyeva’s right to the   presumption of innocence, in view of the pending criminal proceedings at the time.   Instead, the articles had made premature, factually incorrect and defamatory   assessments and the material had been presented in a sensational manner. It was not   evident that the Russian courts in the defamation proceedings had attached any   importance to her right to the presumption of innocence. Nor had they examined closely   whether the journalists had acted in good faith and had provided reliable and precise   information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The court held that Russia was to pay Mr Ageyev 25,000 euros (EUR) and Ms Ageyeva   EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and both applicants jointly EUR 12,100   in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4