The European Court of Human Rights recently delivered a judgment in the case of Loste v. France (Application No. 59227/12), unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

The applicant complained about the failure of the French child welfare service (ASE) to follow-up on her placement, at the age of five, with a foster family where she had been sexually abused for twelve years by her adoptive father. She also complained about the failure of the foster family, who were Jehovah's Witnesses, to comply with their commitment to respect the religious neutrality clause. Although, in fact, the applicant came from a Muslim family, the foster parents took her with them to congregational meetings and preaching activities and when, at the age of 17, the applicant was involved in a serious car accident, they wrote to the hospital requesting that she not be given any blood products.

 

As a preliminary remark, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the French administrative courts had dismissed the applicant's action for damages against the public administration because the statute of limitations had expired. In this regard, the Court found, in the very specific circumstances of the case, that the national Courts had displayed excessive formalism, the effects of which were incompatible with the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 13 of the Convention, which was consequently violated.

The Strasbourg Court also observed that the competent authorities had not implemented the preventive measures required by the legislation in force at the material time to detect the risk of ill-treatment. It found that the lack of regular follow-up by ASE, coupled with the lack of communication and cooperation between the competent authorities, significantly influenced the course of events.

It concluded, therefore, that the national authorities had not fulfilled their obligation to protect the applicant from the ill-treatment to which she had been subjected during foster care, as well as failed to take the required measures to ensure compliance with the religious neutrality clause. There was thus a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 and of Article 9 of the Convention.

 

(Comment by Nadia Spadaro)