The author of the communication is M.E.V.B., a national of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, born in 1969. The author alleges that the State Party has violated her rights under articles 1, 2 (a), 2 (c), 2 (e), 2 (f), 5, 16 (1) (d) and 16 (1) (f) of the Convention by failing to protect her and her son from gender-based violence committed by her son’s father. The author is represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 22 September 2002.
The author claims that she and her son were subjected to domestic violence by her son’s father and that, after the couple divorced, she became a victim of post-separation abuse and of libel and slander. On 22 April 2021, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court ruled that her son’s father was to have sole custody of their son. In December, the father left for Thailand with the son, returning to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in March 2023. During that time, the son was abused by his father. The Council for Child Protection filed a report against the father for child abuse and requested a court in Utrecht to place the son under supervision and have him admitted to a residential institution. On 18 July, the author was summoned by the court, by letter, for a hearing on 10 August, as an informant. On 27 July, the author objected to being considered an informant, requesting to instead be considered an interested party. On 4 August, the court refused her request and denied her right to be represented by a counsellor. The author filed an interim appeal against the decision. She also initiated summary proceedings in The Hague to ensure that she would be considered an interested party and be provided with procedural documents. On 10 August, her claims were rejected. On 10 October, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the author’s appeal was inadmissible as the email of 4 August was not a formal decision. On 10 August, a court in Utrecht issued a supervision order and determined that the son would be placed in a residential institution.
The author requested the Committee to take interim measures that would ensure that her son came to live with her immediately and that she would be considered by all authorities a parent with parental authority. The author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, but submits that proceedings before the Supreme Court would be unduly prolonged.
On 22 November 2023, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications under the Optional Protocol, registered the communication.
On 22 January 2024, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested that the admissibility be examined separately from the merits. The State Party notes that the author has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. She filed an appeal in cassation against the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 10 October 2023; the matter remains pending before the Court. The State Party indicates that, on 9 January 2024, the District Court granted the author sole custody of her son. Moreover, the State Party notes that the author filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in 2021.
On 15 February 2024, the author requested the withdrawal of her communication, given that she had been granted sole custody of her son. On 14 February 2025, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications under the Optional Protocol, decided that consideration of the communication would be suspended.
At its meeting on 17 February 2026, the Committee, taking into account that the author had been granted sole custody over her son and had formally requested the withdrawal of her communication, considered that the case had become moot and decided to discontinue its consideration of communication No. 212/2023.