Published on 19 September 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 28322/20 Y. against Serbia lodged on 10 October 2020 communicated on 29 August 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application essentially concerns the various complaints, under Article 8 of the Convention, of the fourteen-year-old applicant about the legality of the international adoption of her brother in 2018 and a lack of contact with him ever since. In particular, after the applicant’s parents had been deprived of their parental responsibility over her and her three younger siblings, she and her brother Ž.P. were placed in the same foster home in 2014, under the guardianship of Ms M.L., while the two other siblings were placed in the care of another foster family in the same town. In February 2018 Ž.P., at the age of four, was adopted by a Swedish family. In October 2020 Ms M.L. lodged the present application for and on behalf of the applicant. Subsequently, the competent Centre for Social Care initiated proceedings to have her divested of guardianship in respect of the applicant. The proceedings are currently pending.

In addition, the applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the flaws in the relevant domestic proceedings concerning the legality of the adoption order and her request to maintain contact with her brother, a lack of access to a court and to an effective legal remedy which would have enabled her to assert her above-mentioned complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can Ms M.L. claim to have standing in the present case to act before the Court on behalf of the applicant (see V.D. and Others v. Russia , no. 72931/10, §§ 74-76 and 80-84, 9 April 2019, and Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy , no. 16318/07, §§ 32-35, 27 April 2010)?

2. Has the applicant properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 75, 25 March 2014; and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 115-16, ECHR 2015)? In this respect, the parties are requested to provide documentary evidence and jurisprudence in support of their answers.

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the adoption order made in respect of her brother in 2018 and the lack of contact between them ever since (see, mutatis mutandis , I.S. v. Germany , no. 31021/08, §§ 67 et seq., 5 June 2014)?

4. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings concerning the legality of the adoption order and her request to maintain contact with her brother? If so,

(i) did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with this Article?

(ii) did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations?

(iii) was the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

5. Was the applicant deprived of any remedy which would have enabled her to assert her complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Lastly, the Government are invited to clarify and submit copies of the relevant legal framework and/or practice concerning the possibility of contact between the siblings after the international adoption when a family life had already been established between them.