| Applicant name | F.D. AND H.C. |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 2 |
| Country | PORTUGAL |
| Application no. | 18737/18 |
| Date | 07/01/2025 |
| Judges | Lado Chanturia, President, Jolien Schukking, Faris Vehabović, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Răduleţu, András Jakab |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (rights and interests of others) |
| Type of privacy | Relational privacy |
| Keywords | custody |
| Facts of the case | The case concerns the enforcement of a seek and find order issued by the French authorities for the second applicant, the son of the first applicant, and his subsequent return to his mother, O. The applicants complained that proceedings brought against them by the Matosinhos Public Prosecutor’s Office had been unfair. They complained in particular about the lack of a hearing and the return of the second applicant to O. without an assessment of whether he was at grave risk of harm, in breach of their right to private and family life. They also claimed they had had no effective remedy in respect of those alleged wrongs. They relied on Articles 6 § 1, 8, and 13 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | In the Court’s view, relevant domestic legal provisions designed to protect children did exist, but there is nothing to suggest that they were applied in the present case. In particular, the Government have not demonstrated that, at the time of the arrest of the first applicant and when the second applicant was taken from school, the police were accompanied by or requested the collaboration of professionals specialised in child protection such as psychologists or social workers. The authorities had a responsibility to provide the child with assistance, support and services as needed, either at school, where he originally was, or even at a specialised institution, instead of keeping him at the police station with his arrested father. The Government have not submitted that any of this was done by the relevant authorities. The Court therefore finds that, as regards the events of the morning of 15 February 2018, the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to ensure that the second applicant, who was a minor, was protected and provided for when his father was arrested and he was also taken and kept at the police station. Accordingly, the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | (a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: (i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |