| Applicant name | SAVINOVSKIKH AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 3 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 16206/19 |
| Date | 09/07/2024 |
| Judges | Pere Pastor Vilanova, President, Jolien Schukking, Georgios A. Serghides, Darian Pavli, Peeter Roosma, Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | No fair balance; procedural requirments |
| Type of privacy | Relational privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | custody; gender change |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained, on behalf of himself, D.D. and K.K., that the removal of D.D. and K.K. from his custody had not been necessary in a democratic society and, therefore, violated their right to respect for their family life. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: |
| Analysis | The Court observes that in the present case the domestic authorities terminated the applicant’s custody in respect of D.D. and K.K. essentially on account of his diagnosis of “transsexualism”, his change of gender identity and the resulting disruption of the traditional family, defined in domestic law as a union of a man and a woman, where the children had been initially placed, which allegedly affected their physical, spiritual and moral development. The appellate court reflected on his personality, which “could not but affect the mental, spiritual and moral development of the fostered children” and thus in contradiction to the interests of the children ). The Court must satisfy itself that the domestic courts, when taking such a decision, conducted an in‑depth examination of the entire family situation and a whole series of other relevant factors and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with a constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for the child. The reasoning of the domestic courts in this respect relied primarily on the legal impossibility of same-sex couples’ being accepted as foster parents, as well as the traditions and mentality of the Russian society. Furthermore, no consideration was given to the conclusion of the investigating authorities, including in relation to the allegedly unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the applicant’s apartment, to the effect that the applicant and his spouse had performed their parental duties in accordance with the law In such circumstances, the Court considers that regardless of the absence of either a biological or a legal link between the applicant and K.K. and D.D. as from 28 August 2017, when the applicant’s custody of them was terminated by the social services, the applicant did have standing to bring the present complaint before the Court on their behalf. The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the applicant, D.D. and K.K. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds, unanimously, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 5,000 (five Holds, by six votes to one, that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by D.D. and K.K.; |
| Documents | Judgment |