The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment of 12 January 2023 (Kilic v. Austria, no. 27700/15), ruled on the case of two Turkish citizens, Ms. Selma Kilic and Mr. Mursel Kilic, against the Austrian national courts' refusal to reintegrate their children into their family environment.

The minors, children of the couple, had been removed from the care of the applicants on the grounds that they were living in sanitary conditions that endangered their condition of growth and upbringing. The competent Austrian authorities had decided in favor of contact restriction measures based on the best interests of the child.

The applicants complained that the children had been placed in Austrian Christian families, who did not speak Turkish and did not adhere to the Islamic religion, claiming that this decision by the competent national authorities deprived the children of their Turkish and Muslim identity, thus alienating them from their culture and religion. More specifically, the applicants argued that there was intercultural and religious interference with the fundamental rights of the children, such that the deprivation of the identity of the two Turkish children, who were now being brought up without any contact with Islam or their culture of origin, was contrary to the letter of Article 8 interpreted in the light of Article 9 ECHR.

 

For the Court, national authorities must take due account in foster care proceedings of the parent's interest in having their children placed in an adoptive home with a specific cultural, linguistic, and religious background. However, this interest could be respected not only by ultimately finding a foster home that corresponds to the cultural and religious background of the children's origin, but also by making subsequent arrangements regarding the possibility for the applicants to have regular contact with their children, taking due account of the applicants' interest in allowing the children to maintain at least some links with their cultural and religious origins.

As a result, the judges of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the appeal, basing their decision on the fact that the allegation of forced Christianization was not supported by the facts of the case, as was the allegation that the foster parents had not respected the children's culture and religion. Indeed, the judges a quo had justifiably rejected the return of the children to the care of the applicants on the grounds that this would create a potential danger. In fact, the custody restrictions imposed on the applicants were the consequence of negligent conduct in the education and upbringing of their biological children. Despite this, the national authorities had ensured regular meetings and contact of the children with their biological parents.

Consequently, no violation of Article 8, either alone or in combination with Article 9 of the Convention, was found.

 

(Comment by Alessandro Cupri)