The European Court of Human Rights found that depriving a mother of her parental rights because of her status as a woman with drug dependence was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights because the particular circumstances of her case had not been adequately contemplated and less restrictive measures were not considered.
Russia paid Ms. Y.I. compensation. However, Russian courts refused to reconsider their earlier decisions and restore Y.I.’s parental rights. A younger child is still not adopted and lives with a foster family.
The Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe in its Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 invited member States to ensure that adequate possibilities of restitutio ad integrum, and moreover, of re-examinations of cases, are achieved. The importance of reopening proceedings was highlighted in the situations where consequences of grave violations of the Convention cannot be remedied only by just satisfaction and when a respective court decision was found to have violated the Convention.
Such a legal mechanism does exist in Russia. According to p. 1 and 4 of Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, final judgements of national courts can be reviewed pursuant to the ECtHR ruling that there has been a violation of the Convention in regard to the proceedings of that case.
In April 2020 Y.I. filed an application to reconsider the case to Golovinsky District Court in Moscow. Golovinsky District Court refused to reconsider the case. According to the District Court, the ECtHR decision did not rebut the facts that constituted grounds for the deprivation of parental rights, thus the judgement should not be reviewed. Y.I. had filed an appeal to the Moscow City Court in October 2020. The case is still pending. In February 2021, Y.I. informed the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe about the decision of Golovinsky District Court.
The case is a milestone for advocates for the right to respect for private and family life of women who use drugs as well as for the rights of children of parents who use drugs but continue being good and responsible parents. Child protection services should only use such a dramatic measure as the deprivation of parental rights as the measure of the last resort. Parents who use drugs should first get social, medical, and financial support. The significance of this case extends far beyond Russian borders to many other countries where governments continue to enforce discriminatory family laws similar to Article 69 of the Russian Family Code. In light of Y.I. v Russia, such laws should be repealed not to single out drug dependence as a sole reason for the deprivation of parental rights.
For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net members: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.