Communicated on 27 September 2017
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 9068/16
Katarzyna and Mariusz KOWALCZYK
against Poland
lodged on 9 February 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Ms Katarzyna Kowalczyk (the first applicant) and Mr Mariusz Kowalczyk (the second applicant) are a mother and son. They are Polish nationals, born in 1984 and 2000 respectively. They both live in Cracow. They are represented before the Court by Mr Z. Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Cracow.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 March 2014 the Cracow District Court ordered the placement of the second applicant in an educational care facility (placówka opiekunczo-wychowawcza) on the grounds that he had caused problems pertaining to his education. The court referred to a report prepared by a welfare officer who stated that the boy refused to attend school, was verbally aggressive towards his parents, used vulgar words to his mother and did not spend his nights at home. He also had an income from an unknown source. The parents told the court that they could not exercise any influence over the boy and could not make him change his behaviour.
On 28 May 2014 the director of the Educational Care Facility in Cracow sent a complimentary letter concerning the second applicant to the Cracow District Court. He noted that the second applicant had received the highest evaluation of all the students at the facility.
At the end of the school year on 27 June 2014 the second applicant received a special diploma from the secondary school he had attended for an outstanding performance (the highest average mark in the class, very good attendance and perseverance in overcoming difficulties).
It appears that on an unknown date the second applicant subsequently escaped from the facility.
On 17 December 2014 the Cracow District Court decided to change its previous decision and placed the second applicant in a youth educational centre (młodzieżowy ośrodek wychowaczy) for the duration of proceedings concerning the possession of a small amount of drugs (0.9 grams of marijuana). The court also appointed a guardian to supervise the execution of parental authority over the second applicant. The court held that the boy had escaped from the educational care facility in which he had been placed and that his whereabouts were unknown. Even if it was established where he was, it would be purposeless to put him back in the place he had escaped from, in particular because the educational measures applied there had not been sufficient.
On 2 July 2015 the first applicant lodged an application for a modification of that decision. She noted that her son had obtained very good school results in June 2014. Those results had justified his release from the educational care facility, but that had not happened. Moreover, he had suffered from the violent behaviour of other minors in the facility. It was for those reasons that he had escaped.
On 7 July 2015 the Cracow District Court dismissed the application. The court held that the fact that the second applicant was in hiding confirmed that he showed “signs of moral degradation (demoralizacja)”. In the court’s view, the parents could not guarantee that he would follow a proper educational process. The second applicant had apparently stayed for a time with his aunt, however, the mother had failed to inform the court that she was aware of his whereabouts. Such an approach had to be viewed as aiding him and, consequently, as an obstacle to collaboration with the family court.
On 15 September 2015 the first applicant appealed, submitting that the District Court had failed to consider an expert opinion given by a welfare officer, A.Z. (kurator). In his opinion, of 11 June 2015, A.Z. stated that the second applicant could return to his parents’ care on a trial basis. He further noted that the second applicant had not caused any problems during his stay at the care facility. Moreover, he had had successful school results.
On 7 December 2015 the Cracow Regional Court dismissed her appeal, referring to the reasons given by the District Court. The court held that the fact that the second applicant had been in hiding for such a long time showed an ongoing process of moral degradation. It noted that the allegation that the applicant had suffered from the violent behaviour of others at the educational care facility had not been supported by any evidence. The educational measures which had so far been applied in respect of the second applicant had not been effective. In particular, he had been in hiding for several months and his whereabouts and living conditions had not been known. Moreover, it was not clear whether his parents had any influence on him as they had claimed they had not been in contact with him. The court noted that simply because the second applicant had graduated in June 2014 with very good results and his school reports were positive did not mean it could be concluded that he had not undergone a process of moral degradation. In view of such factors, there was a clear indication that the educational measure applied in respect of the second applicant should be modified and that he should be placed in a different, stricter institution.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
In addition to procedures applicable to juveniles who have committed criminal offences and are aged between thirteen and seventeen, the Juvenile Act of 26 October 1982 (ustawa o postępowaniu w sprawach nieletnich) also regulates correctional measures with respect to minors who have displayed anti-social behaviour not prohibited by law, referred to as “signs of moral degradation (demoralizacja)”. The proceedings are normally conducted by a family court.
The principal features of the Juvenile Act were set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Adamkiewicz v. Poland (no. 54729/00, §§ 51-62, 2 March 2010) and Grabowski v. Poland (no. 57722/12, §§ 22-27, 30 June 2015).
Under section 6(9) a minor who shows “signs of moral degradation” may be placed by a family court in a youth educational centre (młodzieżowy ośrodek wychowaczy).
Section 79(1) provides that a family court can at any time modify or lift educational measures.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about the decision to place the second applicant in a youth educational centre and of a resulting interference with their right to respect for their family life.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in the light of the decisions of the domestic courts of 17 December 2014, 7 July 2015 and 7 December 2015 regarding the placement of the second applicant in a youth educational centre (młodzieżowy ośrodek wychowawczy)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, for example, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) (24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy