CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 avril 2010

.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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 333 22.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1] Macready v. Czech Republic (applications nos. 4824/06 and 15512/08)   AUTHORITIES FAILED TO ENSURE FATHER’S RIGHT OF contact with his SON during proceedings for the son’S return to THE united states   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Thomas Lawrence Macready, is an American national who was born in 1971 and lives in Georgetown (United States of America).   He lived in the United States with his wife E.M. and their son A.T.M., born in December   2002, of whom the parents had joint custody. In May 2004, following a divorce petition filed by Mr Macready, an interim joint guardianship order was put in place. On 27   May 2004 the applicant learnt that E.M. had taken their son to the Czech Republic without his consent.   In proceedings instituted by her in June 2004 E.M. obtained custody of the child by virtue of a decision given by the Czech court before it had been informed of A.T.M.’s wrongful removal.   In October 2004 Mr Macready brought proceedings in the Czech Republic under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. On 27 April 2005 the court ordered the return of A.T.M. to the United States. It found that the child had been wrongfully removed for the purposes of the Hague Convention and that the mother’s ability to bring him up had been compromised because she was preventing the applicant from having contact with his son.   On appeal by E.M., the court ordered an expert report. The expert concluded that A.T.M,   who showed signs of suffering from autism, needed to remain with his mother, to whom he was very attached. The applicant challenged the expert’s report, claiming that it was subjective and incomplete.   On 29 June 2006 the court dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that his son’s return to the United States might cause him irreparable harm that risked making his mental illness worse. An appeal by Mr Macready on points of law was dismissed, and his application to the Constitutional Court was also unsuccessful. The court held that the principles of equity had been observed during the proceedings.   From October 2004 the applicant made a number of requests for interim measures allowing him to meet with his son during his visits to the Czech Republic. E.M. appealed against most of these decisions, but it was nonetheless possible to organise a number of meetings between father and son, up until January 2006.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8, Mr Macready complained about the proceedings he had brought seeking his son’s return after he had been removed by his ex-wife.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 January 2006 and 12 February 2008 respectively. The Court decided to join the applications.     Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and of Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Having regard to the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 and to the fact that the length of the proceedings for the child’s return and the alleged inactivity of the court in enforcing the applicant’s right of contact constituted the very substance of the complaint lodged under Article 8, the Court examined the applicant’s complaints solely under that Article. It rejected the Government’s submission that the complaints were inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted all remedies available to him in the Czech   Republic. As the purely compensatory remedy to which the Government referred would not have provided redress for the violations alleged, Mr Macready could not be blamed for failing to have used it.   The Court was entirely in agreement with the philosophy underlying the Hague Convention which sought to deter the proliferation of international child abductions. In this type of case, as the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for relations between the children and the parent who did not live with them, it was crucial that the authorities reacted as quickly as possible in order to re-establish the child’s initial situation and avoid the legal consolidation of de facto situations that had been brought about wrongfully from the outset. That had no longer been possible in the present case after a period of over twenty months had elapsed between the beginning of the proceedings and the decision of 29   June   2006 finally settling the question of A.T.M.’s return to the United States, the child having been eighteen months old when he had left.   During the lengthy proceedings for the child’s return the courts had been prevented from ruling on the exercise of parental responsibility for the child. Accordingly, the only means by which the applicant had been able to exercise his parental rights had been by virtue of interim measures granting him a right of contact during his occasional visits to the Czech   Republic. Furthermore, the courts had failed to act in such a way as to allow him to exercise his right of contact effectively (they could, for example, have taken coercive measures against the mother or contacted social services, child psychiatrists or psychologists with a view to facilitating contact between father and son).   Accordingly, respect for the applicant’s family life had not been effectively protected – in violation of Article 8. That being so, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant’s complaints relating to the expert report or the fairness of the proceedings.   ***   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the Czech Republic had to pay the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. 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 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. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .