CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 octobre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 }   765 15.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Tsourlakis v. Greece (application no. 50796/07 ).   FATHER PREVENTED FROM CONSULTING WELFARE REPORT ABOUT HIS SON   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 the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Konstantinos Tsourlakis, was born in 1956 and lives in Athens. In 1989 he married and the couple had a son. In August 2000 he and his wife separated.   By a judgment of 21 November 2001 the applicant’s wife was awarded sole custody of the child, while the applicant was given the use of the matrimonial home. The applicant and his wife appealed. In an interlocutory decision of 31 March 2004 a welfare report was ordered, to be prepared by the Athens Child Welfare Society (“the Society”).   In November 2004 the Society’s report was filed at the hearing before the Court of Appeal. In a judgment of 19 May 2005 the Court of Appeal granted permanent custody of the child to his mother.   Mr Tsourlakis attempted to obtain a copy of the Society’s report. The Society informed him that the report was a confidential document prepared for the exclusive attention of the Court of Appeal. After applying to the Ombudsman’s office, which informed him that he could not obtain a copy of the report because he had not addressed his request via the competent prosecutor, Mr   Tsourlakis applied to the prosecutor at the Criminal Court. The latter rejected his request, indicating in two sentences added by hand to the applicant’s letter that the request concerned personal information about a minor, of which the applicant had no legitimate interest in being apprised.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8, Mr Tsourlakis complained that he had been prevented from consulting the report of the Child Welfare Society.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 November 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   With regard to the complaint under Article 6, the Court noted that Mr Tsourlakis had not complained at any point during the proceedings that his inability to consult the Society’s report had infringed his procedural rights and his right to a fair hearing. This complaint therefore had to be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 of the Convention.   The Court further observed that the part of the applicant’s Article 8 complaint relating to the use of the Society’s report before the Court of Appeal covered the same ground as his complaint under Article 6, which the Court had declared inadmissible.   With regard to the exercise by Mr Tsourlakis of his right to effective access to information concerning his private and family life following the Court of Appeal judgment, the Court noted that the domestic legislation concerning the use made of welfare reports was less than clear and that the only explanations which the applicant had received had come from the Ombudsman’s office.   The information contained in the welfare report had been relevant to Mr Tsourlakis’ relationship with his son. In that regard, the courts had acknowledged the affection shown by the father towards his child, which was reaffirmed by his persistent efforts to obtain custody. Being informed of any negative findings contained in the report would have enabled the applicant to take them into account in order to improve the relationship. Moreover, Mr   Tsourlakis had had a legitimate claim to be informed of the use made of the details he had provided for the purposes of compiling the report.   The Government had not given reasons for the refusal to allow the applicant to consult the report and had not adduced any compelling reasons to justify the failure to disclose the contents of the document, which contained personal information of direct concern to the applicant. Accordingly, the authorities had not ensured effective observance of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life. The Court therefore held 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) or 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) Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.