CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s856DF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s8E71F611 { width:81pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     675 22.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Stochlak v. Poland (application no. 38273/02)       AUTHORITIES’ INSUFFICIENT ACTION TO SECURE THE RETURN OF A CHILD ABDUCTED BY HER MOTHER     Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses.     (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Wojciech Stochlak, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and has lived in Canada since 1985. In 1993 he and his wife E.S., a Polish national, had a daughter.   At the end of a holiday in Poland in 1996 E.S. refused to return to Canada, having decided to remain in Poland with their daughter.   Mr Stochlak brought proceedings for the return of the child in January 1997. On 7 March 1997 the district court ordered that the child be returned to her father. That decision was upheld on 17 April 1998, after which E.S. lodged an appeal on points of law.   In June 1997 Mr Stochlak brought civil enforcement proceedings, requesting permission to recover the child by force. The district court scheduled hearings at which E.S. failed to appear, submitting medical certificates to justify her absence. The proceedings were also suspended twice. On 2 December 1998 the district court ordered E.S. to return the child within three weeks. This was not done. On 2 April 2002, during a hearing, she refused to reveal the child’s whereabouts.   Mr Stochlak then attempted to bring criminal proceedings against E.S. for abduction of the child, and against his wife’s parents for abduction and unlawful custody in an unknown location. All three attempts were unsuccessful, as the courts found that there was no case to answer   The Ministry of Justice contacted the regional court, the police and schools. In January 2003 a special police unit was put in charge of looking for the girl, and a meeting was held to coordinate the search efforts. Mr Stochlak, deprived of any contact with his daughter during the proceedings, contacted the relevant Polish bodies as well as private detective agencies and the Canadian authorities. Meetings were organised between the Polish and Canadian authorities.   In April 2003 Mr Stochlak travelled to Poland, where he met the police officers responsible for the scheduled operation to recover the child. He was reunited with his daughter on 14   April 2003. Since then they have lived together in Canada. On 22 March 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court granted the Stochlaks a divorce. Parental authority was vested in both parents jointly, and the child's place of habitual residence was fixed as her father’s home.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8, Mr Stochlak complained about the Polish authorities’ failure to act in the proceedings for the enforcement of judicial decisions ordering his daughter’s return to Canada.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 October 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (The United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović ( Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak Republic), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges ,   and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Proceedings relating to the granting of parental responsibility required urgent handling, as the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for relations between a parent and his or her child.   It was clear in January 1997 that Mr Stochlak’s daughter had been unlawfully removed. A year and seven months passed between the district court’s first decision (7   March 1997) and the dismissal of E.S.’s appeal on points of law.   Furthermore, in the context of the civil enforcement proceedings, during the three years following the decision of 2 December 1998 – ordering E.S. to return the child within three weeks – no activity by the authorities could be identified. It was only in January 2003 that a meeting was organised to ensure effective cooperation between the various State bodies.   The authorities had not taken measures to punish the lack of cooperation by the child’s mother, which was the source of most of the problems. The authorities had to have an adequate and sufficient legal arsenal to be able to take sanctions in the event of manifestly unlawful behaviour by the parent with whom a child lived. Yet no coercive measure had been taken against E.S. in the context of the enforcement proceedings, and none of the three sets of criminal proceedings had resulted in a sanction.   The authorities had therefore failed to make adequate efforts to enforce Mr Stochlak’s right to the return of his child. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)     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.