003-6661206-8856116

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 088 (2020)   10.03.2020   Judgments 10 March 2020   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for three   other Chamber judgments in the cases of Dyagilev v. Russia (no. 49972/16), Hudorovič and Others   v. Slovenia (nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14), and Altıntaş v. Turkey (no. 50495/08);   two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Hernehult v. Norway (application no. 14652/16)   Pedersen and Others v. Norway (no. 39710/15)   Both cases concerned child welfare measures.   The applicant in the first case, Dan Mikael Hernehult, is a Swedish national, born in 1961. His case   concerned the authorities’ decision to take two of his sons into care.   Mr Hernehult moved to Norway in 2013 with his wife, a Romanian national, and their three sons, A,   B and C, born in 2000, 2005 and 2007 respectively. The children were placed in emergency foster   homes the same year because of the child welfare services’ concerns over their parents’ ability to   care for them, and the fact that they were bringing them up in isolation, with an unusual focus on   illness.   In 2014 the County Social Welfare Board accepted the welfare services’ application to place the   children in care, concluding that there had been serious neglect. B and C were placed in foster care,   while A went to an institution as the foster carers had found his special needs too demanding.   Mr Hernehult and his wife brought the case before the courts, with the High Court ultimately   deciding the matter in 2015. Noting that A was very unhappy in the institution, it found that it would   be in his best interests to move him back to his parents, giving the mother and father extensive   assistance. As concerned B and C, it decided that they should remain in care because of their   attachment to their foster home. Contact rights were set at six six-hour sessions per year.   The applicants in the second case, M.R. and T. Pedersen, a married couple, and their child, X, are   Norwegian nationals who were born in 1969, 1962 and 2008, respectively. Ms Pedersen is originally   from the Philippines. Their case concerned the authorities’ decision to deprive them of their parental   responsibilities in respect of X and to authorise his adoption.   X was placed in an emergency foster home when he was a few months old because his parents were   mentally ill and incapable of looking after him.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   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 some time, including a period in which Ms Pedersen stayed with him at a parent-child   institution, the child welfare services applied to the County Social Welfare Board for a care order.   The Board allowed the application and X was placed in a foster home. It took the view that the   placement would be long-term and set contact rights at two two-hour visits per year.   Mr and Mrs Pedersen appealed and the case was then heard at three judicial instances, with the   Supreme Court ultimately consenting in 2015 to X’s adoption. The Supreme Court found that it   would be in X’s best interests to stay in the secure environment of his foster home, where he had   lived almost all his life. It also took into account his deep attachment to his fosters parents, as   compared to the lack of ties to his biological parents. It nevertheless considered it important that X   maintain his ethnic ties to the Philippines and upheld the contact rights set by the lower courts.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicants complained about the domestic authorities’ decisions concerning their   children. The applicant in the first case complained in particular about the decisions to take B and C   into care and the subsequent refusal to return them, while the applicants in the second case   complained about the decisions depriving them of their parental responsibility for their son, allowing   his adoption and restricting their subsequent contact.   In the case of Hernehult:   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: 25,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Hernehult for non-pecuniary damage   In the case of Pedersen and Others:   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the child X ; it further held that the   respondent State was to pay M.R. and T. Pedersen jointly EUR 35,000 for non-pecuniary damage and   EUR 9,500 for costs and expenses.   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_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   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.   2