CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 février 2009

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   113 17.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ANCEL v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ancel v. Turkey (application no. 28514/04). ( The judgment is available only in French. )   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the length of the civil proceedings brought by the applicant for custody of her child; and, no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention regarding enforcement of the judicial decision awarding the applicant custody of her child.     1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Emmanuelle Ancel, is a French national who was born in 1968 and lives in Colmar (France).   The case concerns in particular civil proceedings brought by the applicant in the Turkish courts for custody of her daughter, who was born in 1994 from her relationship with M.Ş., a Turkish national.   While on a trip to Turkey the applicant had to leave the country and left her daughter with M.Ş.’s family. M.Ş was appointed as the child’s guardian in October 1995. Ms Ancel then brought civil proceedings in the District Court of Kadıköy (Turkey) and ultimately obtained custody of her daughter in October 1998. The decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation in February 1999.   In February 2001 the applicant requested the Judgment Enforcement Agency to enforce her daughter’s return to her. Bailiffs, accompanied by police officers, made a number of visits, including to M.Ş.’s home, in an attempt to find the child but were unsuccessful. The agency also sent several letters to the Regional Department of the Social Security Office and the Department of Education in Istanbul. In addition, it asked the security police headquarters in Istanbul to search for M.Ş. Following an exchange of correspondence between the French and Turkish Ministries of Justice, the Turkish Ministry of Education also launched a search for the child.   In 2006 Ms Ancel instituted criminal proceedings in the Turkish courts against her former partner, while informing the public prosecutor’s office that the French authorities had issued an international arrest warrant against him. In the same year M.Ş. was arrested in Morocco and extradited to France. He stated before the Colmar Criminal Court that his daughter was attending school in Cyprus. In December 2006 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for abducting the child and failing to hand her over to the person entitled to custody. He is now in Colmar Prison. The Turkish Government observed that the judgment mentioned a meeting between M.Ş. and the applicant in early 2004, of which the latter had never informed the Turkish authorities.   According to information provided by the father, the child was taken to France in 2007. In August 2007 the Colmar Youth Court decided to place her under the guardianship of M.Ş.’s brother-in-law, who was living in London and was appointed as a trustworthy third party. Prior to that date the child, who refused to live with the applicant, had been placed in a foster home in Alsace. The Youth Court also ordered a psychiatric examination of the parents.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 June 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and the failure to enforce a judicial decision awarding the custody of her daughter.   Decision of the Court Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the civil proceedings had lasted about eight years and four months. It pointed out that part of that time – three years and one month – was attributable to the applicant, such as the delays caused by her failure to attend certain hearings, and the unexplained delay in enforcing the decision given in her favour.   In this case, which required inter-State cooperation, the Court found the period of five years and three months at three levels of jurisdiction reasonable. The case had not appeared particularly complex at the outset, but had become increasingly complex on account of the difficulties encountered at the enforcement phase.   Furthermore, whilst it was true that child custody cases had to be dealt with quickly, the Court did not note any significant period of inactivity on the part of the authorities in the present case. It also observed that the applicant had met her former partner in 2004 and had failed to inform the enforcement authorities, which had further delayed the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 6.   Article 8   The Court reiterated that it was for each Contracting State to set up adequate and effective legal means to ensure compliance with Article 8 of the Convention and the other international agreements it had chosen to ratify. However, as the main source of the problem for the Turkish authorities in the present case had been the disappearance of M.Ş., the Court was not required to examine whether the domestic legal order provided for effective sanctions against him.   The decisive issue was therefore whether the Turkish authorities had taken all steps that could reasonably be expected from them to facilitate the enforcement of the decision awarding the applicant custody and exclusive parental authority over her child.   The Court stressed that proceedings relating to the award of parental responsibility, including the enforcement of the final decision, required urgent handling as the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the parent who did not live with it. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 recognised this fact because it provided for a whole series of measures to ensure the immediate return of children removed to or wrongfully retained in any Contracting State.   With regard to the steps taken to locate the applicant’s former partner or their child, the Court could not say that the Turkish authorities had not taken all possible measures in this respect. Moreover, the Court again noted that the applicant had failed to cooperate with the authorities regarding her meeting with M.Ş. in 2004.   The Court concluded that the Turkish State had made adequate and effective efforts to enforce Ms Ancel’s right to the return of her child, and held that there had not been a violation of Article   8.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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 Convention, 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.