Skip to content

Iglesias Casarrubios and Cantalapiedra Iglesias v. Spain — ECHR (2016), App. no. 23298/12

TL;DR. ECHR ruling against Spain for procedural failures in custody proceedings — specifically, failing to hear the child + failing to address the alienation pattern. Establishes that Spanish (and by extension other ECHR-state) courts have a procedural duty to investigate the source of a child's stated position, not merely accept the resident parent's account. Sits alongside Solarino v Italy as the procedural-fairness twin to the substantive Article 8 enforcement-failure line.

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-05-16 · License: CC BY 4.0

Citation

Iglesias Casarrubios and Cantalapiedra Iglesias v. Spain, App. no. 23298/12, ECHR (Third Section), Judgment of 11 October 2016.

Holding

Spain violated Article 8 (and Article 6 — fair trial) by failing in custody proceedings to:

  1. Hear the child in a procedurally adequate way
  2. Investigate the alienation context before drawing conclusions from the child's stated position
  3. Provide reasoned analysis of why the child's stated wishes were treated as dispositive

Key language:

"The domestic courts must take all the necessary measures to ensure that the child's voice is heard in conditions allowing the child to express themselves freely, without inappropriate influence."

Significance

Iglesias Casarrubios is the Spanish-line ECHR procedural anchor. While Bondavalli/Improta/Solarino address substantive enforcement, Iglesias addresses procedural adequacy — courts cannot simply accept what the alienator presents about the child's wishes without independent investigation.

Combined with: - Solarino v Italy (2017) — substantive no-rubber-stamping rule - BGH XII ZB 565/15 (Germany 2018) — source-of-wishes investigation duty - Cass civ 1ère 22 mars 2023 (France) — source-investigation duty - Spain's own Tribunal Supremo + LO 8/2021 violencia vicaria

…this forms the complete European procedural-fairness stack for PA cases.

Practical use

Sample motion language (Spanish/EU context):

Per Iglesias Casarrubios y Cantalapiedra Iglesias c. España (CEDH 2016, n° 23298/12), el tribunal tiene la obligación procesal de garantizar que la voz del menor sea escuchada en condiciones que permitan al niño expresarse libremente, sin influencia inadecuada. La aceptación de las manifestaciones del menor sin investigación del contexto vulnera el artículo 8 + 6 del CEDH.

In English contexts:

Per Iglesias Casarrubios v Spain (ECHR 2016, App. no. 23298/12), the domestic court has an Article 8 procedural obligation to ensure the child's voice is heard in conditions free from inappropriate influence. Accepting the child's stated position without investigating the alienation context violates Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

The procedural-fairness arc

The ECHR procedural-fairness arc in PA-context cases:

Year Case Procedural principle
2010 Mincheva v Bulgaria State cannot rely on its own inaction
2016 Iglesias Casarrubios v Spain Procedural duty to investigate child's freely-expressed position
2017 Solarino v Italy Substantive: cannot rubber-stamp coached refusal
2018 BGH XII ZB 565/15 (Germany) Source-of-wishes investigation duty
2023 Cass civ 1ère 22 mars 2023 (France) Source-investigation duty
2023 Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) (UK) Behavior-frame operationalization

How this interacts with domestic Spanish law

Spain has unusually strong domestic statutory hooks for PA-context arguments:

  • LO 8/2021 Art. 26 — violencia vicaria named statutorily
  • Código Civil Art. 92, 94, 158 — broad medidas authority
  • Tribunal Supremo jurisprudence — behaviors-not-syndrome convergence

Iglesias Casarrubios adds the ECHR-binding procedural-fairness layer. Spanish PA cases now have substantive + procedural + statutory triple-stack.

Citing posts

# Post
13 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/echr-article-8-eu-legal-weapon
17 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/pa-vs-estrangement-courts
19 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/custody-evaluators-prepare
25 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/court-appointed-pa-expert

Primary source

  • HUDOC: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167031

Disclaimer

Wiki entry, not legal advice.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com