CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mars 2006

.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. 84 March 2006 Eski v. Austria (dec.) - 21949/03 Decision 2.3.2006 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Decision of domestic courts to grant adoption of child without consent of father: admissible   The applicant and his former partner, J.W., had a daughter together, M., in 1993. Two years later, the relationship between them broke up, and their daughter stayed with the mother. In 1997, the applicant requested visiting rights with the District Court. In 1998, he and J.W. concluded a visit agreement (under which visits were to take place at the premises of a youth centre in the presence of J.W.). A few months later, the court, with the approval of the Youth Welfare Office, withdrew the applicant’s right to visit, noting that already at the first arranged visit, the applicant had insulted J.W. The fact that he could not avoid conflicts with J.W. and the constant threats against her constituted a serious danger for M’s psychological development. This decision removing his rights was confirmed by the Regional Court. In 1999, J.W. married her new partner, A.F. The applicant filed new requests to visit M. without success. He also objected to a possible adoption of M. by A.F. In 2001, A.F. instituted proceedings with the District Court seeking adoption of M. The court summoned the applicant to a personal hearing which he was not able to attend. However, it took into account a prior written submission by the applicant whereby he still objected to adoption. The applicant, in further submissions, filed a motion for bias against the competent judge and reiterated his request for a right of visit. The District Court heard A.F., M. and J.W., and, in 2002, with the approval of the Youth Welfare Office, replaced the applicant’s consent – as provided for under the relevant domestic law – and granted A.F. permission to adopt M. The court found that A.F. had developed a close relationship with M. who had declared herself in favour of the adoption as she considered A.F. as her father. Moreover, the adoption would secure M.’s position within the family and also be a material safeguard given that A.F. was able to support her financially. The applicant appealed against this decision, complaining of a lack of a public oral hearing in the presence of his daughter, A.F. and J.W. He also complained that the court had failed to take an expert opinion on child psychology. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that several attempts had been made to hear the applicant and that he had had sufficient opportunity to comment in written submissions. Moreover, the District Court had given sufficient and extensive reasons why adoption should be granted, namely the applicant’s anti-family conduct. Admissible under Article   8 (concerning the court decision to allow the adoption of the applicant’s daughter without his consent). Inadmissible under Article   8 (concerning the courts’ refusal to grant the applicant access to his daughter) and under Article   6 (concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings).   © 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