CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 janvier 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 2 January 1999 Holdry v. Germany (dec.) - 29565/95 Decision 12.1.1999 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Request by father for access to children abroad during school holidays: inadmissible   The applicant, a French national, married a German national in France. Two children were born of the marriage. A few years later, the couple separated and divorce proceedings were instituted before both German and French courts. hile the German court granted the mother custody of the children, the French court granted the applicant custody. The latter applied to the competent German court for a right of access to his children in France during school holidays and for an interim injunction. The court rejected his claims on the ground that there was a risk that he would not return the children at the end of the holiday given, inter alia , the legal situation in France. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal without examining the possibility of the applicant having access to his children in Germany, since he had expressly rejected this idea. The Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit his constitutional complaint, noting that the possibility of visiting the children in Germany had not been excluded. Inadmissible under Article 8: The German courts aimed at preserving the children’s well-being and for this purpose took into account their personal situation and the parents’ conduct in the course of the divorce proceedings. They carefully balanced the conflicting interests and the reasons they gave were relevant and sufficient;   moreover, there is no indication of a lack of proportionality. The applicant was involved in the decision-making to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his rights;   in particular, the children were heard by the court and expert psychological opinions were taken into consideration. Thus, the German courts did not exceed their margin of appreciation in dismissing the applicant’s request for access: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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