issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 370 (2019)

29.10.2019

No violation of the rights of a woman involved in a high profile child care case

In today’s Chamber judgment¹in the case of Stankūnaitė v. Lithuania (application no. 67068/11) the

European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on

Human Rights.

The case concerned complaints by the applicant about care decisions related to her daughter and

delays in reuniting them.

The Court found in particular that the authorities had acted with the requisite diligence in the care

proceedings: they had had first to wait for the applicant to be cleared of involvement in the alleged

sexual molestation of her daughter. Once that obstacle was out of the way and the courts had

examined what was in the best interests of the child they had ordered her return to the applicant.

The authorities had then faced obstruction from other family members in handing the child over but

had eventually successfully taken the appropriate measures to deal with what was an extremely

difficult situation.

Principal facts

The applicant, Laimutė Stankūnaitė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1986.

In late 2008 the applicant was accused by her former partner D.K. of being complicit in the sexual

molestation of their daughter, born in 2004 while the couple were still together. The resulting

investigation into the charges was eventually discontinued in November 2010 with no action taken

against the applicant.

In the meantime in October 2009 care proceedings for the daughter resulted in a temporary

guardianship order being issued in favour of D.K.’s sister N.V., the applicant only having supervised

contact with the girl. The order was issued after D.K. had fled the law-enforcement authorities after

two people, suspects in the molestation case, were shot and killed in Kaunas. D.K. was eventually

found dead in April 2010.

After the investigation into the applicant was dropped, a decision that was upheld by a court, the

applicant applied to have her daughter returned to her and in December 2011 her request was

granted. The court carried out an examination of the circumstances, noting that the criminal charges

against the applicant had been dropped and taking account of the Strasbourg Court’s case-law on

the best interests of the child.

Despite the court order, the involvement of a bailiff and a fine, N.V. refused to hand the child over.

The authorities therefore attempted forcible removals: one such attempt was unsuccessful as

supporters of D.K.’s and N.V.’s family had surrounded the house where the daughter was living and

prevented the handover. Finally in May 2012 a bailiff and the police took the child and returned her

to the applicant, despite the presence of a large crowd.

1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.

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.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)

of the European Convention, the applicant complained about the initial temporary care order and

the fact that her daughter was not returned to her even though the criminal investigation had been

discontinued. She also complained about the delays in the actual return of her daughter after the

court order in her favour.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 September 2011.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Denmark), President,

Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),

Branko Lubarda (Serbia),

Carlo Ranzoni (Liechtenstein),

Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),

Péter Paczolay (Hungary) and,

Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), ad hoc Judge,

and also Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

The Court decided that it would examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 alone. It also

declared her complaint about the temporary guardianship order of October 2009 as inadmissible as

she had not appealed against that decision and had thus not exhausted effective domestic remedies.

It went on to divide the applicant’s remaining complaints into two periods: from December 2009,

when she had first asked the courts to return her daughter to her, to December 2011, when a court

had granted that request; and the period between that decision and the actual return of her child.

As to the first period, the Court noted that the delay of two years in granting the applicant’s request

to have her child back had been for uncontestably objective reasons.

First of all, it had taken one year for the Regional Court to uphold the investigator’s decision to

discontinue the sexual abuse investigation and then the court dealing with the request on the child

had had to assess what was in her best interests. Once experts had produced their report in the

applicant’s favour, it had only taken two months for a court decision to return the child to her.

The Court could not find any unjustified delays which were attributable to the authorities in those

proceedings. On the contrary, they had dealt with the matter with the requisite diligence.

The applicant had also complained that she had had little or no contact with her daughter during the

several sets of legal proceedings.

The Court noted that Kaunas City District Court had in December 2008 ordered temporary protective

measures, which had prevented the applicant from seeing her daughter. However, it found that the

order had been justified given the investigation into sexual molestation that had just begun. The

contact arrangement was soon revised, allowing the applicant to see her daughter on a regular

basis. That order had stayed in place until the court decision to return her daughter.

The Court concluded that the applicant was not prevented at any stage of the civil proceedings from

seeing her daughter. More importantly, the applicant had not claimed that she was unable to have

contact with her child owing to the authorities’ actions or omissions.

The applicant had also argued that she and her daughter had not been able to feel free during

meetings. The Court noted that the applicant had been provided with psychological counselling and

that her relationship with the child had become warmer afterwards. The childcare authorities had

also proactively monitored the situation and had assisted the courts.

The Court thus found that the proceedings leading up to the December 2011 court order to return

the child had been conducted with the requisite diligence and that the measures on the applicant’s

separation from and then contact with her daughter had been based on objective reasons.

As for the second period, between the court’s final order and the actual return of the child, the

Court noted that D.K.’s sister N.V. had immediately taken measures to hinder a handover, such as

removing the child from school and keeping her at home.

The bailiff’s efforts to carry out the handover had also been obstructed, firstly because N.V. had not

taken her to school on the appointed day and secondly because of the confrontation with a large

crowd and physical resistance by the child’s grandparents at the house on another occasion. The

bailiff had then developed a plan, in consultation with the police, psychologists and childcare

specialists, which had eventually led to a successful transfer.

Furthermore, the State had not stood by in the face of N.V.’s resistance, imposing a large fine on her

and eventually moving to prosecute her for her actions.

Overall, the authorities had acted with the requisite diligence in enforcing the December 2011 court

decision to return the applicant’s daughter to her. The Court also concluded that the procedural

requirements under Article 8, in particular the fact that the applicant had been represented in the

various proceedings, had also been met.

The Court concluded that the authorities had not failed in their duty to guarantee the applicant’s

right to respect for her private life and there had been no violation of the Convention.

The judgment is available only in English.

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

@ECHRpress.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)

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)

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.