EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 439 20.7.2006Press release issued by the Registrar
[emphasis added by EPC - see EPC's comment at bottom]
Chamber judgments concerning
the Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Romania and the Ukraine
Koudelka v. Czech Republic (no. 1633/05) Violation of Article 8
The applicant, Ji?í Koudelka, is a Czech national who was born in 1957 and lives in Prague. In 1990 a daughter was born of his relationship with E.P. The couple separated the following year and custody of the child was granted to E.P.
In 1993 the applicant applied to the court to gain a right of access, alleging that E.P. was preventing him from seeing their daughter. The court-appointed experts did not observe any impediment to contacts between the applicant and his daughter but reported an antagonistic relationship between the parents and a negative attitude of the mother, whose cooperation was in their view essential for the enforcement of a right of access. In a decision of 24 October 1995, which was upheld on appeal, the applicant was granted a right of supervised access: he was to have contact with his child every other Thursday afternoon in a welfare centre with the assistance of a specialised social worker.
That arrangement is still in force, although proceedings brought by E.P. to have it terminated are pending. The applicant has been trying to have his right of access enforced from the outset. The only attempt to establish contact was made in July 2002 at a specialised centre. On that occasion the experts found serious shortcomings in the upbringing of the child by E.P. and observed that contact between the applicant and his daughter would not be possible without prior therapy, as E.P. had been instilling a parental alienation syndrome in the child.
The applicant complained that the authorities had not made sufficient efforts to enforce his right of access in respect of his daughter, in spite of her mother’s resistance. He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).
Even though it had been aware, from 1995, of E.P.’s obstruction to contact between the applicant and his daughter, the domestic court had for a long time done nothing more than address a formal warning to E.P. in 1996, and that measure had manifestly remained ineffective. Subsequently, it was not until April 1999 and October 2000 that the court had imposed two fines on E.P., for about EUR 70 and EUR 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the reprehensible attitude of the mother, the Court considered that such a measure could not be regarded as sufficient or adequate.
In the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the non-enforcement of the applicant’s right of access was mainly attributable to the manifest refusal of the mother, and then to that of the child under her mother’s influence. It found, however, that the Czech courts had not taken all the measures that could reasonably have been expected of them, in the very difficult dispute at issue, in order to secure E.P.’s compliance with the applicant’s right of access, and that their action had not been sufficiently prompt or systematic. Moreover, in view of the psychologist’s conclusion in July 2002 that E.P. was not bringing the child up properly, it was legitimate to wonder whether the courts had been acting in the child’s interest.
In the Court’s view, the Czech courts had allowed this dispute to be settled by the mere passage of time, such that the resumption of relations between the applicant and his daughter no longer seemed possible. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. It did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 13,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, together with EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 701 already received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)
EPC COMMENT:
Alienated parents in the UK, who have applied to ECHR in similar circumstances, will be left wondering why their very similar cases were not even entertained by ECHR.
UK continually violates articles 8 (right to family life) and 6 (right to fair hearing) yet ECHR does nothing. Even in this case where it has found against the state, look at the nugatory consequences! This award is pathetic!!
In EPC's view, ECHR is a waste of time and money. It is a court that, in the vast majority of cases, fails to deliver justice.
Please post a comment on this blog - EPC is very interested to hear your views and experiences with ECHR.
No comments:
Post a Comment