Information Note on the Court’s case-law 67

August-September 2004

Sabou and Pircalab v. Romania - 46572/99

Judgment 28.9.2004 [Section II]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Withdrawal of parental rights as automatic consequence of imposition of prison sentence: violation

The first applicant, a journalist, was convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment and an ancillary p enalty provided for by Articles 71 and 64, taken together, of the Criminal Code, namely suspension, inter alia , of his parental rights for the duration of his imprisonment.

Extract (Article 8) – “The Court notes at the outset that the ban on exercising pa rental rights imposed on the first applicant amounted to interference with his right to respect for his family life... The question remains whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim. In that regard, the Court notes that, in the Government’s opinion , its purpose was to preserve the safety, morals and education of minors. The Court points out that, in cases of this type, consideration of what lies in the best interest of the child is of crucial importance, that the child’s interest must come before al l other considerations and that only particularly unworthy behaviour can justify a person being deprived of his or her parental rights in the child’s best interests. The Court notes that the offence for which the applicant was convicted was completely unre lated to questions of parental responsibility and that at no time had any allegation been made concerning a lack of care on his part or ill-treatment of his children. The Court notes that, under Romanian law, the ban on exercising parental rights is applie d automatically and without flexibility as an ancillary penalty on any person who serves a prison sentence, without the supervision of the courts and without taking into consideration the type of offence and the child’s interests. Accordingly, it represent s a moral reprimand aimed at punishing the convicted person rather than a child-protection measure. Having regard to those circumstances, the Court considers that it has not been shown that the withdrawal of the first applicant’s parental rights in absolut e terms and in application of the law corresponded to any overriding requirement in the children’s best interests and, consequently, that it pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the health, morals or education of minors. Consequently, there h as been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the first applicant.”

© 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