issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 072 (2020)
25.02.2020
Depriving a mother who was a drug addict of her parental rights, without
considering a less drastic step, was disproportionate
Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about being deprived of her parental authority in
respect of her three children because she was a drug addict. Drug addiction is a ground for removing
parental authority under the Russian Family Code, and entailed her losing all contact rights.
The Court found in particular that the national courts had not sufficiently justified taking such a
drastic measure, even though there were less radical solutions available under domestic law. Nor
had they taken into consideration that she had no history of neglecting her children, had started
rehabilitation and had not apparently been given any warnings about or support for her drug
problems.
Principal facts
The applicant, Y.I., is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Moscow. She has three
children by two fathers, who were born in 1999, 2011 and 2012.
On 8 October 2013 the applicant was arrested at her home on suspicion of drug trafficking. She was
taken to the police station and interviewed, admitting to having started taking drugs in 2004. She
had stopped in 2010 before giving birth to her two youngest children, but had relapsed and been
taking heroin for the past month.
The children were immediately taken into public care. Her eldest child was subsequently taken to
stay with his father. The two youngest children, whose father had been arrested at the same time as
the applicant, were initially placed in a children’s home and were then transferred to a foster family
where they have remained ever since.
In April 2014 she was found guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
In the meantime, in January 2014, the domestic courts had deprived her of parental authority,
deciding that it would be dangerous to leave the children in her care. The courts referred in
particular to her drug addiction and the fact that she was unemployed. In her defence, the applicant
argued, providing evidence, that she had started rehabilitation treatment and found a job. The first-
instance court rejected this argument as irrelevant, while the appeal court found that it had been
received after the first-instance judgment.
In cassation proceedings the Presidium of the Moscow City Court upheld the lower courts’
judgments, endorsing their reasoning.
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.
