5.  The applicants, who belong to the Roma ethnic group, were born in 1970 and 1957 respectively and live in Mănăstirea (Călărași). 6.  At the relevant time they were living together in a de facto partnership and were the parents of seven children:
–  E. and E.S., a boy and a girl, twins, born on 27 March 2004;
–  T., a boy, born on 7 March 2005;
–  A.-M., a girl, born on 31 March 2006;
–  S., a girl, born on 15 June 2007;
–  E.L., a girl, born on 29 June 2008;
–  I., a boy, born on 8 October 2009. 7.  The second applicant has been classified as suffering from second‑degree permanent disability on account of psychological disorders. 8.  On 3 October 2013 the applicants married. 9.  In August 2010 the first applicant sent a complaint to the Romanian president, claiming that her father had subjected her to abuse; she stated that he had raped her and threatened her children. She attached to her complaint a medical certificate attesting that in 2008 one of her children had sustained injuries necessity seven to eight days of medical treatment. 10.  Following an investigation, the authorities dealing with the matter established that the first applicant’s allegations had no basis in fact and that the complaint had been drawn up in the context of a conflict between the first applicant and the representative of the religious organisation in her village, who had allegedly excluded her from that community. 11.  The first applicant’s complaint was then transmitted to the authority responsible for monitoring the situation of maltreated or abandoned children, namely the Călăraşi Directorate-General of Social Assistance and Child Welfare (“the DGASPC”, paragraph 12 below), in order to verify the circumstances of the applicants’ children. On 16 September 2010 the DGASPC asked the Social Services Department of the Mănăstirea municipality (“the SPAS”) to look into the education provided to the family’s seven children, verify their welfare situation and their health, and to provide it with all relevant information (see paragraph 12 below). 12.  In September 2010 the SPAS visited the applicants’ home. It noted that the family lived in an insalubrious house provided by the first applicant’s father and that the applicants took no interest in their children’s health or education. The family’s monthly income amounted to 774 Romanian lei (RON) and this sum was composed of the second applicant’s disability allowance, child allowances and an allowance paid to the first applicant as a single parent. The SPAS’s report also mentioned that the applicants refused to enrol their children in school or with a doctor, and that they restricted their access to outdoor activities and any other activity which could potentially stimulate their integration or adaptation to life within the community. According to the SPAS, the applicants had refused assistance from social-service employees who wished to advise them about their responsibilities towards their children. 13.  Based on the SPAS’s findings (see paragraph 12 above), on 20 September 2010 the DGASPC sent the applicants a letter informing them that, as parents, they had a duty to provide the minimum conditions necessary for their children’s development and also to ensure that they did not neglect them. The DGASPC recommended that the applicants take the following measures:
“ –  provide [their children] with an appropriate level of physical cleanliness and clean clothes, [and guarantee the cleanliness] of the house and a proper diet;
–  sign up all the children with a family doctor, have them vaccinated and follow any recommended treatment;
–  enrol the children aged from three to seven years in a nursery school;
–  allow the children to create relationships with [the other children/] ([through] walks, games);
–  refrain from subjecting the children to physical and/or verbal violence and from giving them emotionally traumatising messages (do not create [feelings of] fear, isolation, [do not create in them a] lack of confidence).” 14.  In the same letter, the DGASPC informed the applicants:
“The manner in which you fulfil these obligations will be monitored by ... the DGASPC.
Should the neglect of the children persist, and if this affects their safety within the family and [if] there is a breach of certain of their rights, urgent protection measures will be taken in respect of the children, even without [your] agreement, in accordance with sections 64, 65 and 66 of Law no. 272/2004 (the Protection of Children’s Rights Act). ...” 15.  A schedule was drawn up to ensure regular monitoring of the applicants’ family by the social services. On 11 October 2010 the committee responsible for providing support to the Mănăstirea municipal guardianship and welfare office visited the applicants’ home. It submitted a report stating that the applicants claimed not to have signed up their children with a doctor and had no intention of doing so; in addition, although they had enrolled one of the children in nursery school, they did not take him there for fear he would be kidnapped. The committee’s report also noted that the house was made up of two rooms, an entrance corridor and a kitchen, where clothes and wood were piled up together. It added that the house was heated and clean, and that a meal had been prepared. 16.  It further indicated that the second applicant had become anxious and begun raising his voice to complain that he was not receiving allowances for all of his children. Informed that the monitoring of his family would last for several months, the second applicant apparently became agitated and informed the municipal employees that they were not to return to his home. The committee proposed in its report that the monitoring of the applicants’ family should continue. 17.  On 22 December 2010 and 18 January 2011 the SPAS went to the applicants’ home in order to assess the children’s situation and advise the applicants about the measures to be taken in order to meet the DGASPC’s recommendations (see paragraph 13 above). According to the SPAS, the second applicant was very recalcitrant, insulted the social-service employees, refused access to the children and declined to provide them with information about the children. In the reports drawn up after these two visits, the SPAS mentioned that the house was still poorly maintained, that the windows were covered with plastic tarpaulins, and that the door was damaged. It indicated that the children’s situation did not seem to have improved since the monitory of the family had begun, and emphasised the applicants’ refusal to cooperate with the social services and their failure to fulfil their parental obligations. In view of these findings, it suggested that a protective measure be imposed in respect of the children. 18.  On 28 January 2011 a set of measures was prepared in the context of protecting the applicants’ children, “as a result of the parents’ lack of investment in their role, consisting in providing the minimal conditions necessary to raise [their children], care for them, oversee their satisfactory development, educate them and monitor their health”. The SPAS continued to monitor the children’s situation and ensure that welfare benefits were paid to the applicants. 19.  A new report, drawn up on 25 February 2011, indicated that the applicants’ family had little contact with others and that the parents were not collaborating with the social services in respect of the monitoring of their children; their neighbours alleged that they behaved aggressively and that their children were still neglected. This report recommended that a protective measure be adopted in respect of the children. 20.  On 16 and 17 March 2011 the DGASPC drew up two reports about the applicants’ children. These noted the unsanitary conditions in the house, the very poor hygiene conditions and the applicants’ neglect of their children. With regard to this last aspect, the DGASPC noted that the applicants took little interest in their children’s health and refused to send them to school, to participate in social activities and to have contact with others. In its view, the applicants were refusing to cooperate with the authorities in improving the children’s situation. The reports concluded that, given the seriousness of the state of neglect faced by the children and the parents’ lack of agreement to protective measures, emergency placement of the underage children was recommended. 21.  On 21 March 2011 the DGASPC drew up individual protection plans for the applicants’ children, specifying their needs, the persons responsible for them and the support to be provided to the family. 22.  At the DGASPC’s request, in two separate judgments of 6 April 2011 the Călăraşi County Court (the “county court”) ordered the children’s emergency placement and transferred parental rights in their respect to the president of the Călăraşi County Council. 23.  In the absence of appeals, these judgments became final. 24.  On 4 August 2011, in spite of the applicants’ objections, employees of the DGASPC, assisted by a bailiff, police officers and a psychologist gave effect to the judgments of 6 April 2011 (see paragraph 22 above). In consequence, the youngest child, I., was placed with a child-minder in Călăraşi, a town situated about 38 km from the village in which the applicants lived; the oldest children were placed together in a residential centre situated about 88 km from the applicants’ home. 25.   The children underwent psychological and medical tests after being taken into care by the authorities. The test report noted that serious deficiencies had been observed in the children, “resulting from neglect by the parents”. Thus, according to the report, I. was suffering from “recent cerebral paroxysmal events, microcytic hypochromic anaemia and weight‑related hypotrophy”, as a result of which she had been admitted to hospital urgently. As to the children’s intellectual development, the report noted “slight delayed development ... in all the children; speech issues, a limited vocabulary, a minimal level of socialisation, [and] a tendency to withdraw from others”. 26.  On 5 August 2011 the DGASPC drew up a report on the six oldest children, noting as follows:
“... The conclusions of the social services’ report indicate shortcomings in the place of residence (the dwelling belongs to C.G.; ..., the habitable area is insufficient and it is furnished and equipped to a minimal standard; the hygiene conditions are precarious, there are significant shortcomings [in housework and in maintaining] cleanliness in the house and also in terms of personal hygiene, clean clothing and food hygiene); financial [difficulties] – [the family’s income] is made up of an allowance for a person with second-degree disability [on account of a] psychological disorder, amounting to 234 [RON], and of State child benefit, amounting to 540 [RON]. It should be noted that although both parents live in the village of Mănăstirea, [the second applicant] has never taken steps to be registered as resident in this municipality... [The first applicant] did not attend school and is not in any paid employment.
... the parents’ conduct was found to be negligent...: [they] did not look after or take elementary steps to provide for [their children’s] health (none of the children was registered with a doctor); provided no educational stimulation to their children, had not registered them in nursery school and had limited their right [to take part in] socialisation [activities]. In this context, [the social inquiry report has indicated] language difficulties in six of the children and anxious behaviour (dread, remaining on the side-lines, retreating from strangers, lack of confidence) on account of [their fear] of being kidnapped for organ trafficking.
... [The applicants] are known in the community as individuals who generate conflict and tensions, and who frequently accuse, criticise and insult the local authorities and their neighbours for financial reasons (they ask for additional benefits, etc.)...
Similar tensions exist in the relationship between the [applicants] and members of their extended family ... The latter have stated that they are unwilling and unable to take care of [the applicants’] children, with whom they have no contact. Although [the applicants have] received psychological and educational assistance to help them fulfil their role, meet their parental obligations and to make conscious provision for the [essential] needs in raising [the children], overseeing their satisfactory development and educating them, their case has continued to be monitored by the SPAS representatives; [however,] they have been unable to enter the [applicants’] home, as communication has always been difficult and accompanied by accusations and threats.
[The applicants] have been informed of the effect of neglect on the children’s development and about the option [that is available to the authorities] to limit their parental rights where cases of abuse through negligence are found. The protection measures available have been described to them, including maintaining normal relationships with the children throughout the period of separation from the family. The parents have vehemently rejected the appropriate protection measures and have refused to accept the intervention of specialised authorities.” 27.  Also on 5 August 2011, I. was examined by a DGASPC psychologist. It was established on that occasion that the child suffered, among other problems, from delayed motor development and language acquisition, and emotional shortcomings. The psychologist recommended cognitive stimulation, particularly in terms of language. Having regard to the findings of this report, the family’s precarious financial position and the parents’ lack of cooperation in spite of the psychological and educational advice provided by the social services, the DGASPC considered that it was necessary to replace the emergency placement measure in respect of I. by a temporary placement order. 28.  The DGASPC submitted two requests to the county court, seeking to have the emergency placement measure replaced by a temporary placement order. It presented the children’s situation as described in the reports of 5 August 2011 (see paragraphs 26 and 27 above) and indicated that no alternative form of care by a family member had been identified. 29.  The applicants, who were present at the hearing and represented by a lawyer acting pro bono, called for the action brought by the DGASPC to be dismissed. They submitted that, in spite of their lack of resources, they were bringing up their children satisfactorily and that the children were not ill. 30.  In two judgments of 7 September 2011 the country court, basing its decision essentially on section 66 of Law no. 272/2004, ordered that the children be temporarily placed in care: by an initial judgment, I. was placed with a child-minder; by the second judgment, the six other children were placed in a special residential centre. Parental rights in respect of all the children were assigned to the president of the Călăraşi County Council. 31.  In reaching this conclusion, the county court noted in its two judgments that the evidence in the case-file indicated that the applicants’ home was not a suitable place to bring up children, as the floor space was too small and poorly equipped, and there was no guarantee that it was clean. It also noted that serious shortcomings had been observed with regard to the personal hygiene and diet of family members. It noted the parents’ negligence with regard to the children’s health and their refusal to send them to school or allow them to take part in social activities. It also noted that, according to the documents in the files, the children’s language development was delayed; they displayed anxiety-related behaviours which, in the county court’s view, had been transmitted by their parents; and there were delays in the development of I.’s motor skills. 32.  The county court added that although the applicants had received psychological and pedagogical advice to help them fulfil their parental duties, they had difficulties in grasping the children’s needs and, through their conduct, still demonstrated negligence towards the underage children. It held that, for the time being, the applicants were not providing the necessary conditions for their children’s satisfactory development and that it was in the children’s best interests to be placed in care on a temporary basis. 33.  The applicants lodged appeals against those judgments. They asked for the action brought by the DGASPC to be dismissed and submitted written evidence. 34.  On 22 and 23 September 2011 the applicants’ six oldest children underwent individual psychological tests. These revealed that all of the children were slightly behind their age cohorts in terms of social and educational development and indicated that they required cognitive and educational stimulation. The children began attending school. 35.  By a final judgment of 7 November 2011, the Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the appeal court”) dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of 7 September 2011 concerning their six oldest children. It held that the placement measure was justified by the precarious nature of the applicants’ living conditions and by their attitude towards their children. It noted the temporary nature of the measure, which was due to be lifted once the applicants had submitted the necessary financial and non-financial guarantees with regard to raising their children. 36.  By a final judgment of 28 November 2011, the appeal court dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of 7 September 2011 in respect of I.’s placement. After endorsing the reasoning set out in the first-instance judgment, the appeal court considered that the lawfulness of its findings was confirmed by other evidence added to the case file, such as, for example, the medical report in respect of this child (see paragraph 22 above). 37.  Following the temporary placement of their children in care, the applicants had work done on the house to improve their living conditions. 38.  At their request, on 10 January 2012 the DGASPC carried out a social inquiry visit to their home. In its subsequent report, it was noted that the applicants had improved their living conditions by furnishing the house to a minimum level and that they now had electricity and access to drinking water. However, the DGASPC noted that the toilet area was not equipped in such a way as to permit privacy and that various sections of the roof had been visibly damaged by storms. After drawing attention to the family’s income, it noted that the applicants had made efforts to maintain contact with their children, whom they had visited on two occasions since they were placed in care, and that the first applicant, at her initiative, had accompanied one of the children to hospital when he was ill. It added that the applicants had stated that they could not afford to travel more frequently to visit the children. 39.  The above-mentioned report further indicated that the municipal authorities, through their representative, had contacted the applicants to propose assistance, which the second applicant had refused. However, the applicants had apparently begun to cooperate with the authorities and to show an interest in maintaining contact with their children and in what they had to do so that the placement measures could be ended. In this connection, the local authorities had encouraged the second applicant to register his residence at the first applicant’s address so that they could receive financial assistance from the municipality, and had informed him of the formalities to be completed. They had been offered psychological testing with a view to joining, as appropriate, a family-support programme to develop and consolidate their parenting skills. The applicants had apparently refused to undergo this testing. 40.  Having regard to those factors, the DGASPC concluded that, for the time being, the conditions for ensuring the children’s safe return to the applicants had not been met: it emphasised the lack of fuel for heating the house and the second applicant’s lack of cooperation with the authorities. It explained that it would be better to delay the children’s return to their family and that the parents needed to achieve a certain level of progress, under the SPAS’s supervision, to acquire the necessary skills to ensure their children’s safety and to be informed of the potential risks to the children. It added that the children’s return to their family in the near future was not to be ruled out; in its view, however, given the need to improve certain conditions so as to ensure their safety, the applicants’ fluctuating attitude in their communication with the authorities and the applicants’ difficulties in grasping and responding to the children’s needs, the placement measure ought to be maintained for the time being. 41.  On 17 January 2012 the DGASPC asked the SPAS to continue to monitor and advise the applicants’ family and to indicate to it those aspects that it still considered deficient in the visit that had been carried out on 10 January 2012 (see paragraphs 38 to 40 above). It also asked the SPAS to inform it of the measures taken to improve the applicants’ living conditions. 42.  On 14 February 2012, following the DGASPC’s request (see paragraph 41 above), the SPAS made another visit to the applicants’ home. On this occasion, it was noted that the applicants were maintaining contact with their children by telephone, since it was difficult for them to travel to the residential centre on account of the wintery weather conditions. The visit report established that the applicants’ physical living conditions had improved and that they had had work done to clean the house. The applicants had promised to enrol the children in school, register them with a doctor, and cooperate with the authorities. The SPAS concluded that the applicants’ living conditions had improved in comparison with those existing when their children were placed in care and that the return of all the children to their family could be envisaged. 43.  In the meantime, on 11 January 2012 the applicants had brought an action against the DGASPC before the county court. They requested that the emergency placement order in respect of their seven children be lifted and that they be returned to the family home. They argued that their living conditions were of a satisfactory standard for raising their children, and submitted to the case file a copy of the agricultural register showing that they had free accommodation, and also an electricity bill, evidence of their income and documents stating that three of their seven children were enrolled in school. They added that the children were not being cared for properly in the residential centre. 44.  The DGASPC did not follow the SPAS’s recommendation (see paragraph 42 above) and asked for the action to be dismissed on the grounds that, although the material living conditions in the applicants’ home had improved, this aspect was not sufficient to ensure the children’s safety. Nonetheless, the social inquiry report on the SPAS’s visit of 14 February 2012 (see paragraph 42 above) was included in the case file. 45.  By a judgment of 15 February 2012, the county court dismissed the applicants’ action on the ground that, in spite of the improvement in their living conditions, they had no other income apart from the allowances they received for their children and that there was no guarantee that these were used exclusively to care for the children. The court stated that those allowances had to cover the needs of the whole family. 46.  The applicants lodged an appeal. They argued that they provided appropriate living conditions to ensure their children’s physical, intellectual and moral development. In addition, the county court had wrongly concluded that their only source of income was from the child allowances, whereas, in their submission, the second applicant was in receipt of two allowances and of income for day-work carried out for various inhabitants of the village. They added that they believed that the family’s income ought to benefit the parents, but more especially the children. 47.  The DGASPC requested that the temporary placement measure be maintained. 48.  No new evidence was added to the case file. 49.  By a judgment of 20 March 2012, the appeal court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Referring to sections 2, 66 and 68 § 2 of Law no. 272/2004, it considered that the circumstance which had led to the children’s temporary placement in care had changed only in part, and held that the contested measure was to be maintained. 50.  In its judgment, the appeal court began by setting out the reasons justifying the temporary placement measure (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above) and stated that since the children had been placed in care the applicants had visited their six children in the residential centre twice and had visited I. once. 51.  It further noted that, since being placed in care, the children had been examined and treated by a doctor and had joined nursery or primary schools, depending on their age. It noted that the children were all receiving assistance in school from a specialised educator who was monitoring each child’s situation and involving them in specially selected activities to enable them to catch up in those areas where academic delays had been observed when they were placed in care. It stated that, on the basis of the documents in the case file, the children had progressed in terms of independence, personal hygiene and diet since being placed in care and were developing positively. 52.  The appeal court then described the first meeting that had taken place in November between the applicants and the six children who were housed in the residential centre. After describing the children’s reactions, it concluded that the meeting had proceeded normally; the applicants had eaten a meal and played with the children. It noted that the applicants had not expressed any dissatisfaction to the staff about their children’s condition. It further noted that, since that meeting, the applicants had contacted the children by telephone and continued to express their fear that their children would be kidnapped for organ trafficking. However, it noted that the second applicant had refused to give his personal telephone number to the child-care staff so that he could be informed about any issue concerning the children, and that communication was possible only when he himself called the residential centre. 53.  The appeal court then compared the conditions considered necessary by the DGASPC for the children to be returned to their family (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above) with the SPAS’s findings during the social inquiry visit of 14 February 2012 (see paragraph 42 above). It noted that although the applicants had satisfied certain of the conditions imposed by the DGASPC, there remained room for improvement. It held:
“The conditions for the children’s reintegration [into the family] have not been met, given that the other criteria laid down by the DGASPC to ensure the children’s safety are not fulfilled: [namely,] the parents’ involvement and cooperation...; the repair of the roof; registration of the [second] applicant’s home in Mănăstirea in order to be able to receive welfare payments; maintenance of links with the children by increasing the regularity of visits; acceptance of their parental responsibilities (registering the children with a doctor, enrolling them in primary and nursery school); the fact of finding employment; improved relations with the other members of the community; undergoing the psychological tests proposed by the DGASPC’s specialists to ascertain their level of parental skills, so as to be able to include them, if appropriate, in a parental support programme and thus develop and consolidate their parental skills; the prevention of major risks to the underage children by accepting monitoring by the Mănăstirea SPAS.
....
At the same time, the appeal court notes that it has not been conclusively shown that the applicants have sufficient financial resources to support all of their children and to request [the latter’s] return to their family. The two allowances ... received by the [second] applicant, amounting to a total of 646 RON per month, do not represent a source of income that is sufficient to raise and educate seven children, who currently live in better conditions that those that their parents could provide them with. In addition, no evidence has been submitted proving that the applicants have received additional income through day-work carried out in the municipality by the second applicant ....” 54.  The appeal court concluded that, in any event, the improvements in the applicants’ living conditions noted in the social inquiry report which had been added to the case file (see paragraph 42 above) was not the only condition that the applicants had to fulfil before being able to request their children’s return. According to the appeal court, the applicants had still to fulfil the other conditions laid down by the DGASPC, which were intended to ensure that the children’s best interests were protected. 55.  A social inquiry report drawn up on 2 April 2012 noted that the family’s material conditions had improved, that the applicants were maintaining contact with their children by telephone and that they visited them once a month, the municipal authorities having provided them with fuel for these journeys. The report stated that the family’s monthly income consisted in two allowances received by the second applicant, amounting to a total of RON 646. It was suggested that the municipal authorities make an emergency payment of RON 1,800 to the applicants for repair of the house’s roof and the installation of toilets. 56.  By a decision of 4 April 2012, the municipal council granted the first applicant the above-mentioned RON 1,800 in emergency aid. 57.  On 10 April 2012 the applicants had a confidential interview with a psychologist from the DGASPC. Having been informed of the purpose of the interview, namely to assess their parental skills with a view to the children’s return to the family, the applicants replied to questions. The report drawn up after this interview indicated that the applicants had low parenting skills: they met only their children’s basic needs and were unaware of the effects that their conduct could have on the children’s development. It suggested that the applicants be included in a psychological support programme so as to develop and consolidate their parental skills, inform them about how to exercise their rights, put their parental responsibilities into practice and improve their skills in developing relationships with the wider community. 58.  On 17 April 2012 the second applicant registered his home address at the first applicant’s home. 59.  A visit to the applicants’ home by social services on 26 April 2012 revealed that their living conditions had improved, that the applicants had cooperated with the authorities and that they had begun to take the steps recommended to them for the children’s well-being. The DGASPC suggested that the six children who had been placed in the residential centre be reintegrated into their family. 60.  In May 2012 the children underwent psychological tests, which revealed an improvement in their general condition since they had been placed in care. 61.  By a report of 5 May 2012, the DGASPC noted that the family’s situation had improved, that the applicants had visited their son regularly, shown an interest in his health and displayed affection towards him. It also indicated that meetings had been organised not only between I. and his parents but also with his brothers and sisters. Emphasising the clear interest shown by the applicants towards their child, the DGASPC proposed that the placement measure be ended. 62.  On 7 May 2012 the DGASPC brought an action before the county court requesting that I. be returned to the applicants’ home. 63.  By a judgment of 23 May 2012, the county court decided that it was in I.’s best interests to be returned to his family, especially as the conditions for his satisfactory development had been met and his relationship with his family was very strong. 64.  On 21 June 2012 I. was returned to the applicants’ home. 65.  On 7 May 2012 the DGASPC and the applicants brought an action before the county court requesting that the temporary placement order in respect of the six other children be lifted. 66.  By a judgment of 23 May 2012, the county court dismissed the action. The applicants and the DGASPC lodged an appeal against that judgment. 67.  While that appeal was still pending, the six children spent the summer holiday at the applicants’ home, at their parents’ request. On 10 July 2012 the social services visited the applicants’ home, in the presence of the children. This visit indicated that the children would be able to live and develop in satisfactory conditions in the home. The report on this visit was added to the case file before the appeal court. 68.  By a final judgment of 22 August 2012, the appeal court set aside the first-instance judgment and ordered that the children be returned to their family. It pointed out that Law no. 272/2004 sought to protect the best interests of the child and that the public authorities were required to help ensure that children developed and were raised within their families, and explained:
“... although the provision of a certain level of material comfort is an essential element for minors’ development, [it is nevertheless the case that] an inadequate income does not in itself represent an insurmountable obstacle to the children’s return to their family, provided that the parents show a genuine interest in raising the children themselves...”. 69.  The appeal court held that, given the improvement in the applicants’ living conditions through assistance from the public authorities, and the change in their conduct towards their children, it was in those children’s best interests to re-join their family.
...