CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 septembre 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law September 1994 Hokkanen v. Finlande - 19823/92 Judgment 23.9.1994 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Non-enforcement of a father's right of custody and access in respect of his daughter staying with her maternal grandparents after mother's death and subsequent transfer of custody to them: violation, no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION Events prior to 10 May 1990, when Convention entered into force with regard to Finland, taken into account merely as a background. A.   Applicability Links between applicant and daughter clearly sufficient to establish "family life" within the meaning of Article 8. B.   Compliance Principles in Court's case-law restated. 1.   Non-enforcement of access (a)   Period before Court of Appeal's judgment of 21   October   1993: prevailing view of Finnish authorities was that in child's best interest to develop contacts with applicant, even if she might not wish to meet him - persistent refusal by grandparents to comply with access arrangements specified in court decisions and with orders of enforcement - actions of social welfare authorities consisted mainly of planning a few meetings and taking steps to conciliate the applicant and the grandparents; none of which materialised - difficulties in arranging access admittedly in large measure due to animosity between applicant and grandparents but responsibility for failure of decisions in bringing about contacts could not be attributed to him - authorities could not be said to have made reasonable efforts to facilitate reunion - their inaction placed the burden on applicant to have constant recourse to time-consuming and ultimately ineffectual remedies to enforce his rights. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)   Period after 21 October 1993: no reason to call into question Court of Appeal's conclusion that child sufficiently mature for her views to be taken into account and that access should therefore not be accorded against her own wishes. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three). 2.   Non-enforcement of custody rights and transfer of custody As of 10 May 1990 child, who had been placed with grandparents since one and a half years old, had been living with them for about five years - few contacts with father during this period - on 30 May national social authority recommended transfer of custody to the grandparents and on 13 August local authority instituted proceedings to this effect before District Court - sufficient grounds to justify non-enforcement of applicant's custody rights pending their outcome. Court of Appeal's decision on 25 September 1991 to transfer custody to grandparents was based on expert opinion and had regard to length of girl's stay with them, her strong attachment to them and her feeling that their home was her own - reasons were relevant and sufficient for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 8 - national authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation - measure was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting her interests. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three). II.   ARTICLE 5 OF PROTOCOL NO. 7 Complaint under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7, based on same facts as those under Article 8, did not give rise to separate issue. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Scope of the issues In accordance with established case-law, Court's examination limited to facts underlying the complaint declared admissible by European Commission of Human Rights. B.   Reasonableness of the length of the second set of custody proceedings Second set of custody proceedings had been concluded within a reasonable time. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Complaint amounted in substance to same as those made in respect of Articles 6 and 8. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage : award of compensation on equitable basis. B.   Costs and expenses : partial reimbursment ordered. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes