CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 } 906 01.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia (application no. 8673/05 and 9733/05)   FATHER HARDLY SAW HIS DAUGHTER FOR OVER FOUR YEARS AS A RESULT OF THE SLOVENIAN AUTHORITIES’ INACTIVITY   Violation of Article 8 (respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicants, Mr Johann Ivan Eberhard and Ms M., are two Slovenian nationals. Mr Eberhard, was born in 1968 and lives in Ponikva. The second applicant,   M., is his daughter.   On 8 April 2001 the first applicant’s wife, M.E., together with the second applicant, M., then aged four, moved out of the flat in which they all lived. M.E. subsequently filed a petition for divorce.   Following administrative proceedings, access arrangements, which became final and enforceable on 16 October 2002, were made according to which Mr Eberhard could spend four hours a week with his daughter. However, M.E. persistently failed to comply with the order and refused M.’s father all access to their daughter. In November 2002 Mr Eberhard asked for the access order to be enforced. Despite a decision granting the enforcement and imposing a fine on M.E. she continued to prevent Mr Eberhard from seeing their daughter. Mr Eberhard’ notified the Šentjur Administrative Unit (the Unit) thirteen times about M.E’s continued refusal to let him see M. and the Unit imposed fines on M.E. on six occasions. M.E. appealed against the fines and the relevant Ministry ordered the Unit to re-examine them. It is not clear whether the authorities took any subsequent steps in the context of these proceedings.   In June 2001, further to the divorce application filed by M.E., the competent court had issued an interim decision granting M.E. provisional custody of M. pending the outcome of the proceedings. In February 2002 the court granted Mr Eberhard and M.E. divorce and gave M.E. custody of their daughter.   On 6 June 2003, Mr Eberhard brought proceedings seeking custody of M. on the ground that M.E. continued not to let him see the child. He also requested an interim order asking for custody over M. pending the outcome of the proceedings. M.E. continuously failed to cooperate with the court and as a result an interim decision was issued only in May 2006. The court rejected Mr Eberhard’s request for provisional custody; it granted him, however, the right to spend one afternoon a week with his daughter when he would pick her up from school, as well as every second weekend and part of the holidays. In January 2008, the proceedings were finally resolved the parties agreeing on new access arrangements and withdrawing all claims they had pending before the court against each other.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 Mr Eberhard and his daughter M. complained about the authorities’ failure to ensure contact between the two of them despite the access arrangements decided in administrative proceedings. The two applicants also complained about delays in the court proceedings concerning child custody and access arrangements.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 February 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Androrra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Moldova), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Having noted that M.E. had sole custody of the second applicant after the interim order of June 2001, the Court found that the first applicant had no standing to act on the second applicant’s behalf.   The Court therefore limited its examination of the case to the part that concerned Mr Eberhard, hereafter referred to as “the applicant”.   The Court recalled that Article 8 included for parents a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions. In cases of enforcement of decisions concerning contacts with children, the authorities had to do everything necessary to execute such decisions swiftly, as the passage of time could have irreversible consequences for the relationship between children and parents who did not live together.   The Court noted that Mr Eberhard had had visiting rights as the authorities had established that M. had an interest in maintaining contacts with her father. The access arrangements of August 2001 had not, however, been enforced between the moment they became final, in October 2002, and the time when new access arrangements had been determined by court in May 2006. M.E. had continuously refused to let Mr Eberhard see his daughter. That had resulted in Mr Eberhard having had contact with his daughter only three times during the first three years.   The Court found that the Slovenian authorities had failed to make effective efforts to execute the access arrangements. Furthermore, the court proceedings for access arrangements and custody had lasted over four and a half years and only five hearings had been held in all during that period. The authorities had not reacted adequately to the lack of cooperation by M.E. during those proceedings, neither had they acted with the utmost urgency as required by the situation. Accordingly, the Slovenian authorities had not done everything possible to ensure contact between Mr Eberhard and his daughter, as determined in the access arrangements, nor to have the court proceedings for access and custody rights completed speedily; as a result there had been almost no contact for over four years between M. and Mr Eberhard, in violation of Article 8.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 7,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or 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) 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.