E. M. and others vs. Norway and the proportionality of other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Tomáš Zdechovský, Jitka Fialová *
University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Health and Social
Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
Korespondenční autor: Jitka Fialová (fiajit@post.cz)
ISSN 1804-7181 (On-line)
Full verze:
Submitted:13. 3. 2024
Accepted: 14. 6. 2024
Published online: 30. 6. 2024
Summary
In the E. M. case, two sons were removed from a Czech family in Norway in 2011 due to suspicion of sexual abuse by the father. This abuse was not proven, but the sons were not returned to the mother, against whom accusations appeared in the form of alleged neglect and later media coverage of the case against the children’s interests. The boys were separated into two different foster families, and the mother’s visiting rights were gradually reduced from two hours twice a week to 15 supervised minutes twice a year – and only with the younger son. In 2017, the mother also lost her parental rights. The case ended up at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which accepted Norway’s full argumentation without examination and stated that there was no violation of the right to family life according to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (the Convention).
Methods: A case study/interprofessional analysis of the ECtHR judicial decision and related facts emphasising social work.
Results: The judicial decision of the ECtHR was announced after more than 4 years, and the appeal was rejected within 19 days. This is the only case where a conflict of interests of the mother was noted when filing a complaint, and it was not explained who can file a complaint on behalf of minor children if neither the parents nor the Czech Republic can. The court also did not explain why the boys were separated, what the limit of acceptable media coverage of the case by the parents was, and why the Norwegian social service (Barnevernet) and the Norwegian courts did not have to accept any of the mother’s evidence or investigate whether the children could be placed with other relatives in the Czech Republic – as required by the Hague Convention.
Conclusion: Due to 56 very similar complaints by parents directly against Barnevernet’s procedure (insufficient visits, patronage of foster parents, forced adoptions, etc.), of which the ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 in 22 cases, as well as judgments such as T. vs. Czech Republic, it can be stated that that the sentence is disproportionate.
Keywords: Barnevernet; Child protection; E. M. and others vs. Norway; False accusation; Social work
Literatura
1. A. G. against Norway, Application no. 14301/19 (2019). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–05–25]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
2. A. L. and Others (2019). European Court of Human Rights [online] [cit. 2023–12–18]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
3. Best Countries for Raising Kids (2020). U.S. News & World Report L.P. [online] [cit. 2020–08–29]. Available from: https://www.usnews.com/…ing-children
4. Borzova O (2015). Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States. Parliamentary Assembly: Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. [online] [cit. 2020–09– 26]. Available from: https://pace.coe.int/en/files/21567
5. Case of Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway: Application no. 15379/16 (2019). European Court of Human Rights: Council of Europe. Strasbourg. [online] [cit. 2020–09–13]. Available from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ eng?i=001–199382
6. Case of K. F. and others v. Norway (2023). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–03– 01]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
7. Case of K. O. and V. M. v. Norway: Application no. 64808/16 (2019). European Court of Human Rights: Council of Europe. Strasbourg. [online] [cit. 2020–09–13]. Available from: http://hudoc.echr. coe.int/eng?i=001–198580
8. Case of Strand Lobben and others v. Norway: Application no. 37283/13 (2019). European Court of Human Rights: Council of Europe. Strasbourg. [online] [cit. 2020–09–13]. Available from: http:// hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001–195909
9. Children and Youth at Risk (2023). The EEA and Norway Grants. [online] [cit. 2023–12–17]. Available from: https://eeagrants.org/…t-andpoverty- reduction/children-and-youth-risk
10. Children and Youth at Risk: Estonia (2012). The EEA and Norway Grants. [online] [cit. 2023–12–17]. Available from: https://eeagrants.org/…grammes/EE04
11. Codification of the legal regulation of family support, substitute family care and the care system for vulnerable children [Kodifikace právní úpravy podpory rodin, náhradní rodinné péče a systému péče o ohrožené děti] (2014). Fondy EHP a Norska. Prague: Ministerstvo financí ČR. [online] [cit. 2021–08–18]. Available from: https://www.eeagrants.cz/…-norskefondy- 2009–2014/programy/ehp-fondy-2009–2014/cz04-ohrozene-deti-a-mladez/cz04-schvaleneprojekty/ kodifikace-pravni-upravy-podpory-rodin-n-1370 (Czech).
12. Committee on the Rights of the Child (2018). Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Norway: CRC/C/NOR/CO/5–6. United Nations Human Rights: Office of the Hight Commissioner. [online] [cit. 2020–09–13]. Available from: https://uhri.ohchr.org/Document/ File/5b80210c-6743–4c80-ad1c-c00761c059dd/dca5260e-f67d-4e34-b716-f95efa80620f
13. Dalen, K, Tiltness ÅA., Yssen SSF (2023). Children and Youth at Risk. Fafopaper: Research on working life, education, welfare and migration. [online] [cit. 2023–12–15]. Available from: https:// www.fafo.no/…23/10380.pdf
14. Development of Support System for Foster families, Adoptive parents, Guardians and Host families in Latvia (2014). The EEA and Norway Grants. [online] [cit. 2023–12–17]. Available from: https:// eeagrants.org/archive/2009–2014/projects/LV03–0130
15. E. M. and Others against Norway (2019). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2023–12– 18]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
16. Ekhaugen T, Rasmussen I (2016). Rapport om private aktører i barnevernet. Ministry of Children and Families in Norway. Regjeringen.no. [online] [cit. 2024–02–28]. Available from: https:// www.regjeringen.no/…solberg/bld/ nyheter/2016/rapport-om-private-aktorer-i-barnevernet/id2498772/
17. European Convention on Human Rights (1970). European Court of Human Rights: Council of Europe. Strasbourg. [online] [cit. 2020–09–13]. Available from: https://www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
18. European Court rules on 21 applications against Norway concerning children taken into public care (2023). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–01–25]. Available from: https://hudoc. echr.coe.int/eng?i=003–7744629–10718629
19. Ferebauer V (2018). Barnevern dělá z rodičů podlidi, říká norský aktivista za práva dětí [Barnevern makes parents subhuman, says Norwegian child rights activist]. MF Dnes. [online] [cit. 2024–02– 29]. Available from: https://www.idnes.cz/…vernsocialni- sluzba-tor-age-berglid-rodice-barnets-beste.A180730_141647_zahranicni_fer (Czech).
20. Fergusson A, Fergusson L (2020). The best countries for raising a family in 2020. Asher & Lyric Fergusson. [online] [cit. 2020–08–29]. Available from: https://www.asherfergusson.com/raising-afamily- index/
21. Final report on the implementation of the Action Plan to fulfill the national strategy for the protection of children’s rights for the period 2012–2015 [Závěrečná zpráva o plnění Akčního plánu k naplnění národní strategie ochrany práv dětí na období 2012–2015] (2016). Prague: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí. [online] [cit. 2021–08–18]. Available from: https://www.mpsv. cz/documents/20142/225508/Zaverecna_zprava_NAP_2012_2015.pdf/0c851382–71d0-bec5–14f8– 4f893882d136 (Czech).
22. Ghiletchi V (2018). Striking a balance between the best interest of the child and the need to keep families together. Parliamentary Assembly: Council of Europe. Strasbourg: Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. [online] [cit. 2020–09–13]. Available from: https:// assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=24770&lang=en
23. Gluck G (2023). Norway: High-Ranking Child Psychiatrist with “Pedophile Leanings” Removed Children From Families. Women’s voices. [online] [cit. 2024–01–25]. Available from: https:// genevievegluck.substack.com/p/norway-high-ranking-child-psychiatrist
24. Hjermann R (2020). A Champion for Children. Societies Without Borders 14(1). [online] [cit. 2024– 03–01]. Available from: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/…vol14/iss1/5
25. Imrich Dudková V (2017). Bilaterální spolupráce mezi ČR a donorskými zeměmi: Bilaterální fond „B“ [Bilateral cooperation between the Czech Republic and donor countries: Bilateral Fund “B”]. Ministerstvo financí ČR. Fondy EHP a Norska. [online] [cit. 2023–12–15]. Available from: https:// docplayer.cz/158266807-Bilateralni-spoluprace-mezi-cr-a-donorskymi-zememi.html (Czech).
26. J. B. and E. M. against Norway, Application no. 277/20 (2020). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–05–29]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
27. Jochmannová L (2021). Trauma u dětí: kategorie, projevy a specifika odborné péče [Trauma in children: categories, manifestations and specifics of professional care]. 1st ed. Prague: Grada, 218 p. Psyché (Czech).
28. Koukal J (2014). Zakázali mi plakat, říká žena, které norské úřady vzaly syny [They forbade me to cry, says a woman whose sons were taken away by the Norwegian authorities]. Borgis a.s. Novinky. cz [online] [cit. 2024–02–29]. Available from: https://www.novinky.cz/…ali-miplakat- rika-zena-ktere-norske-urady-vzaly-syny-262341 (Czech).
29. Le Fay M (2022). Barnevernet už nepeče koláčky ze slz slovanských dětí [Barnevernet no longer bakes cookies from the tears of Slavic children]. Monika Le Fay [online] [cit. 2024–01–25]. Available from: https://monikalefay.cz/…nskych-deti/ (Czech).
30. Lubomír POLÁŠEK contre la République tchèque, requête no 31885/05 (2007). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–05–25]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?…
31. MacDonald R (2007). Who can lead the world on human rights? Lancet 369(9561): 1–4. DOI: 10.1016/S0140–6736(07)60253–0.
32. Magnus H (2019). Speech given by His Royal Highness The Crown Prince on the 60th anniversary of the European Court of Human Rights. The Royal house of Norway. [online] [cit. 2024–01–25]. Available from: https://www.royalcourt.no/tale.html?…
33. Marius Bodnariu and Others against Norway (2020). European Court of Human Rights [online]. [cit. 2023–12–18]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
34. Mazancová H (2015a). Barnevernet odebírá děti preventivně, aby nebyl průšvih, vykresluje Čech norský úřad [Barnevernet removes children as a precaution so that there is no trouble, a Czech portrays the Norwegian Office]. Mafra, a.s. Lidovky. [online] [cit. 2024–02–28]. Available from: https://www.lidovky.cz/…i-cechnorsky- urad.A150124_185215_ln_domov_hm (Czech).
35. Mazancová H (2015b). Trestní oznámení proti matce odebraných dětí. Přečtěte si dokument norské policie [Criminal complaint against the mother of the taken children. Read the Norwegian police document]. Lidovky.cz [online] [cit. 2024–01–25]. Available from: https://www.lidovky.cz/domov/ trestni-oznameni-proti-matce-odebranych-deti-bylo-pozastaveno.A150121_181850_ln_domov_ele (Czech).
36. Mazancová H (2015c). Nejasnost kolem klíčových posudků? Pro norský úřad je psali partneři, tvrdí právník [Confusion about key testimonials? The partners wrote them for the Norwegian authority, the lawyer claims]. Lidovky.cz [online] [cit. 2024–03–01]. Available from: https://www.lidovky. cz/domov/nezavisle-posudky-norskeho-uradu-na-evu-michalakovou-je-psala-partnerska-dvojice. A150124_172912_ln_domov_hm (Czech).
37. Ministry of Children and Families (2001). The Child Welfare Act. Norwegian Government. Oslo. [online] [cit. 2020–09–14]. Available from: https://www.regjeringen.no/…childwelfare- act/id448398/
38. Ministry of Children and Families in Norway (2023). Child Welfare Act. Ministry of Children and Families in Norway. Regjeringen.no [online] [cit. 2024–02–28]. Available from: https://www. regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/child-welfare-act/id2971550/
39. Muižnieks N (2015). Norway: people with disabilities and Roma need more attention: Country visit report. Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights, Strasbourg. [online] [cit. 2020–09–26]. Available from: https://www.coe.int/…ties-androma- need-more-attention
40. Norway Population (2023). Worldometer. International: Worldometer. [online] [cit. 2023–12–12]. Available from: https://www.worldometers.info/…-population/
41. Norwegian Embassy: Authorities do not punish parents for speaking to the media [Norská ambasáda: Úřady rodiče za mluvení s médii netrestají] (2015). Deník. [online] [cit. 2024–03–01]. Available from: https://www.denik.cz/…uveni-smedii- netrestaji-20151008.html (Czech).
42. Oktábcová M (2013). Hlas dítěte v náhradní rodinné péči a jak mu naslouchat: Norsko – české sdílení zkušeností o náhradní rodinné péči a péči o ohrožené děti [The voice of the child in substitute family care and how to listen to it: Norway – Czech sharing of experiences on substitute family care and care for vulnerable children]. Právo na dětství. Prague: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí. [online] [cit. 2021–07–19]. Available from: http://www.pravonadetstvi.cz/…ohrozenedeti- a-mladez/male-grantove-schema/podporene-projekty-mgs-v-oblasti-a/hlas-ditete-v-nahradnirodinne- peci-a-jak-mu-naslouchat/ (Czech).
43. One denunciation and Barnevernet took their daughter. The Czech-Norwegian couple will complain [Jedno udání a Barnevernet jim vzal dceru. Česko-norský pár si bude stěžovat] (2016). Česká televize. [online] [cit. 2023–12–18]. Available from: https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/clanek/domaci/ jedno-udani-a-barnevernet-jim-vzal-dceru-cesko-norsky-par-si-bude-stezovat-120568 (Czech).
44. Paloncyová J, Höhne S, Barvíková J, Žáčková L (2022). Stabilita rodiny a porozchodová péče o děti ve veřejném mínění [Family stability and post-departure childcare in public opinion]. 1st ed. Prague: RILSA, 69 p. (Czech).
45. Pavlát J, Janotová D (2006). Syndrom zavrženého rodiče [Abandoned parent syndrome]. Čes a slov. Psychiatr: Časopis Psychiatrické společnosti ČLS JEP a Psychiatrickej spoločnosti SLS. Prague: Česká lékařská společnosti J. E. Purkyně 102(1): 7–12 (Czech).
46. Pavlíček T, Beránek J (2022). Michaláková měla dostat syny zpět do péče, hodnotí šéf českého úřadu pro ochranu dětí Kapitán [Michaláková should have got her sons back into care, assesses the head of the Czech Office for the Protection of Children, Kapitán]. Český rozhlas. [online] [cit. 2024–01–25]. Available from: https://www.irozhlas.cz/…evropskysoud- pro-lidska-prava-kapitan-rozhovor_2201201437_ako (Czech).
47. Pavlíková M, Mareš M (2020). “Barnevernet Steals Children” an Analysis of Russian Information Warfare Narratives in the Czech Disinformation Media. Trames. J Humanit Soc Sci 24(4): 589–605. DOI: 10.3176/tr.2020.4.07.
48. R. A. against Norway, Application no. 44598/19 (2019). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–05–29]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
49. S. A. against Norway, Application no. 26727/19 (2019). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–05–29]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?…
50. Salvesen EC, Thune GH, Nwoso TE, Witoszek TN (2016). Notice of Concern – The situation within Norwegian Child Protection Services. Avskilda barn – Secluded children. Oslo: Avskilda barn. [online] [cit. 2020–09–26]. Available from: https://avskildabarn.se/…f-concernthe- situation-within-norwegian-child-protection-services/
51. State and municipal servants capacity building in the field of de-institutionalization, based on the good experience of Norway (2014). The EEA and Norway Grants. [online] [cit. 2023–12–17]. Available from: https://eeagrants.org/…ts/LT10-0012
52. Statement of the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs [Vyjádření ministryně práce a sociálních věcí] (2015). Nadace J&T. [online] [cit. 2021–08–19]. Available from: https://www.nadacejt.cz/…niministryne- prace-a-socialnich-veci-n106.html (Czech).
53. T. v. Czech Republic [T. proti České republice] (2014). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2023–11–12]. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?… (Czech).
54. The Hodonín court entrusted Eva Michaláková’s sons to her care. The European judiciary continues to deal with the case [Hodonínský soud svěřil syny Evy Michalákové do její péče. Případem se nadále zabývá evropská justice] (2021). Česká televize. [online] [cit. 2024–03–01]. Available from: https:// ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/clanek/regiony/hodoninsky-soud-sveril-syny-evy-michalakove-do-jeji-pecepripadem- se-nadale-zabyva-evropska-justice-39342 (Czech).
55. The matter of information about Norwegian funds and social legal protection of children [Ve věci informací o Norských fondech a sociálně právní ochraně dětí] (2015). Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí. Brussels: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí. [online] [cit. 2021–08–18]. Available from:: https://www.mpsv.cz/…ef-6498-4ce6- 26fcc693970d (Czech).
56. The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (2023). The Norwegian Child Welfare Services (barnevernet). The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs. Bufdir. [online] [cit. 2023–10–30]. Available from: https://www.bufdir.no/…re-services/
57. The role of NGOs in alternative care for children (2014). The EEA and Norway Grants. [online] [cit. 2023–12–17]. Available from: https://eeagrants.org/…ts/RO09-0273
58. Tomešová J (2019). Syndrom zavrženého rodiče [Abandoned parent syndrome]. Právní prostor. Prague: Atlas Consulting s. r. o. [online] [cit. 2023–07–02]. Available from: https://www. pravniprostor.cz/clanky/obcanske-pravo/syndrom-zavrzeneho-rodice (Czech).
59. Violations by Article and by State (2023, 2024). European Court of Human Rights. [online] [cit. 2024–01–25]. Available from: https://www.echr.coe.int/…ion-2023-eng
60. Westphalová L, Holá L, Leix A, Kovářová D (2021). Nástroje řešení rodičovských konfliktů [Tools for resolving parental conflicts]. Prague: Leges, 336 p. Teoretik (Czech).
61. Zdechovský T, Fialová J (2023). The best interests of the child as an argument for the assessment of social pathological phenomena in the family environment. Journal of Nursing, Social Studies, Public Health and Rehabilitation. České Budějovice: Zdravotně sociální fakulta JU v Českých Budějovicích 14(3–4): 109–119.
62. Zdechovský T, Pirošíková M, Fialová J (2021). Norway and the Right to Respect Family Life from the Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights. Institutul Român pentru Drepturile Omului/ ‘Human Rights’ Journal (2): 7–27. [online] [cit. 2022–08–18]. Available from: https://revista.irdo. ro/pdf/2021/revista2_2021/01_Tomas_Zdechovsky.pdf
