CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 mai 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sEB95B278 { width:124.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7BC1BCA6 { width:89.5pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s5AB35A21 { width:61.54pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA8754BFF { width:3.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   264 9.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Moldova and   Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (All three are available only in English.)   One repetitive case [2] can also be found at the end of the press release.   C. v. Finland (application no 18249/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Mr C., is a British national who was born in 1955 and lives in Cartigny (Switzerland).   The applicant and his wife, B. (now deceased), who was of Finnish origin, had two children, a boy born in 1987 and a girl born in 1989. The couple separated and custody of the two children was awarded to their mother, who had moved to Finland where she was living with her female partner, L. Mr C. had visiting rights. Following B’s death on 30 August 1999, custody was awarded to Mr C. by the Finnish lower courts (district court and Court of Appeal). However, the Supreme Court overturned those decisions, granting custody to L. and no visiting rights to Mr C.   The applicant complained about the decision and procedure adopted by the Supreme Court and about the extremely limited contact with his children during the proceedings and the failure to order any contact afterwards. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights recalled that the custody dispute which the Finnish courts were called upon to resolve lay between the applicant, the father of the two children, and L., who was the partner of their deceased mother and with whom the children had lived   since 1993.   Notwithstanding the past and continuing acrimony between the adults which had taken its toll on the children, there was no finding by the domestic courts that the applicant was in any way unfit as a father or not capable of providing for their needs and putting their interests first. Contact visits had taken place without significant difficulty while the mother was still alive, and even in 1999 the relationship between the applicant and his children was, on the whole, good and beneficial. The lower courts accordingly gave custody to the applicant, considering that the later negative views given by the children were influenced by L. and the conflict between the adults and could not be regarded as decisive of their best interests.   The Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse those decisions was supported by relevant reasons; the children’s expressed wishes that they remain with L. in Finland. It had to be noted that all the domestic courts essentially agreed as to the consistency and strength of the children’s views.   However, the Supreme Court placed exclusive weight on the views expressed by the children without considering any other factors, in particular the applicant’s rights as a father, effectively giving the children an unconditional veto power. Furthermore it did so without holding an oral hearing and without taking any steps to clarify, through further evidence or expert opinion, any divergent interpretation of the evidence or whether greater harm would be caused to the children’s welfare by a decision in the applicant’s favour than a decision in L’s favour, which would effectively deprive them of a relationship with their father. The decision was reached in a manner which understandably left the applicant with the impression that L. had been allowed to manipulate the children and the court system to deprive him unjustifiably of his parental role.   The Court concluded therefore that the decision-making procedure failed to strike a proper balance between the respective interests and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Concerning the access arrangements, the Court noted that the applicant did not make any application for access visits before the Court of Appeal. During the Court of Appeal proceedings, contact meetings were attended by various difficulties. By that time, for whatever reason, the children were refusing to meet with their father alone and the applicant resisted any suggestion of L.’s participation in visits. Against that background, the Court considered that the Supreme Court’s refusal of interim access visits could be regarded as supported by relevant and sufficient reasons. Regarding the failure of the Supreme Court to provide for contact, it did not appear that the applicant had made any application for such or that he had made subsequent application before the courts. Against the background of the children’s continued resistance it might well be that there would also be relevant and sufficient reasons for a decision refusing to give defined contact. Until the courts rule on an application by the applicant, however, the matter remained somewhat speculative. The Court found therefore that there was no indication that the courts failed to respect the applicant’s right to respect for family life as regards the issue of access to his children. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 in that regard.   Concerning Mr C’s complaint under Article 6, the Court noted that the lack of an oral hearing was an essential, and integral, part of its finding of a violation of Article 8 and held unanimously that, in the circumstances of the case, no separate issue arose under Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 56,000 for costs and expenses.       Bogacz v. Poland (no. 60299/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Edward Bogacz, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lived in Warszawa. He died in 2000.   On 28 June 1994 the applicant, then a police officer, was charged with accepting bribes. The court placed the applicant under police supervision. No hearing was ever held in the case and the proceedings were discontinued in 2000, given the applicant’s death.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings (seven years and eight months) against him, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant’s widow EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.   Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Lungu v. Moldova (no. 3021/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Vasile Lungu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Cocieri (Moldova).   He complained about the authorities’ lengthy failure to enforce a judgment awarding him compensation of 1,407 Moldovan lei (equivalent to 307 euros at the relevant time).   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 98 for pecuniary damage, EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Contacts pour la presse     Emma Hellyer (téléphone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (téléphone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (téléphone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.