CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 juillet 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 } .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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7C281E20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s500D534C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s444FCFCE { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .s96E4206C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .sACA0C168 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s163D3B2F { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } 540 06.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Grand Chamber Judgment [1]   Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (application no.   41615/07)   RETURN OF A BOY ABDUCTED BY HIS MOTHER WOULD NOT BE IN HIS INTEREST AND WOULD BREACH THE CONVENTION     Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the return order were enforced     Principal facts   The applicants, Isabelle Neulinger and her son Noam Shuruk, are Swiss nationals who were born in 1959 and 2003 respectively and live in Lausanne (Switzerland, Canton of Vaud). In 1999 Ms Neulinger settled in Israel where she married Shai Shuruk in 2001. Their son, Noam, was born in Tel Aviv in 2003. Fearing that Noam would be taken by his father to a “Chabad-Lubavitch” community – she described the Lubavitch movement as ultra-orthodox, radical and known for its zealous proselytising – Ms Neulinger applied to the Tel Aviv Family Court, which in 2004 imposed a ban on Noam’s removal from the country until he attained his majority. She was awarded temporary custody and guardianship was to be exercised by both parents jointly. The father’s access rights were subsequently restricted on account of his threatening behaviour.   In February 2005 the parents divorced and in June Ms Neulinger secretly left Israel for Switzerland with her son. In a decision of 30 May 2006, issued following an application by the child’s father, the Tel Aviv Family Court observed that Noam was habitually resident in Tel Aviv and that the parents had joint guardianship. The court held that the child’s removal from Israel without the father’s consent was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (“the Hague Convention”).   In a decision of 29 August 2006 the father’s application for his son’s return to Israel was dismissed by the Lausanne District Justice of the Peace on the ground that there was a grave risk that the child’s return to Israel would expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. The Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed the father’s appeal, confirming that this case was an exception to the principle of the child’s prompt return, in accordance with Article 13, sub-paragraph (b), of the Hague Convention. On 16 August 2007 the Swiss Federal Court allowed the father’s appeal, on the ground that the Article in question had been wrongly applied, and ordered Ms Neulinger to return the child to Israel.   In February 2009 the applicants provided the European Court of Human Rights with the certificate of a doctor who had examined Noam in 2005, and several times since then, indicating that “an abrupt return to Israel without his mother would constitute a significant trauma and a serious psychological disturbance for this child”.   In a provisional-measures order of 29 June 2009 the Lausanne District Court, at the request of Ms Neulinger, decided that Noam should live at his mother’s address in Lausanne, suspended the father’s right of access in respect of his son and granted parental authority to the mother, so as to allow her to renew the child’s identity papers.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants relied, in particular, on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, submitting that Noam’s return to Israel would constitute an unjustified interference with their right to respect for their family life.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26   September   2007. In a judgment of 8 January 2009 , the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 8. On 5 June 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request. A Grand Chamber hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, in Strasbourg, on 7 October 2009.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (France), President , Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Josep Casadevall (Andorra), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania) Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .     Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Grand Chamber found, like the Chamber, that Noam’s mother had removed him from Israel “wrongfully”. Under Israeli law the principle of guardianship – which included the right to determine the child’s place of residence – was comparable to custody rights under the Hague Convention, which had therefore been breached, because guardianship was to be exercised by both parents jointly. In addition, the mother had removed the child in breach of an order prohibiting his removal from Israel that had been made by the domestic court at her own request, and the removal rendered illusory, in practice, the possible exercise by the father of his right of access. She had thus committed an abduction for the purposes of the Hague Convention and the Swiss Federal Court’s order for the child’s return therefore had a sufficient legal basis. The Grand Chamber shared the Chamber’s opinion that the order pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of Noam and his father, which the parties had not denied.   In ascertaining whether a fair balance between the competing interests at stake – those of the child, of the parents, and of public order – had been struck, the child’s best interests had to be the primary consideration. This consisted in maintaining his ties with his family but also ensuring his development in a sound environment. The concept of the child’s best interests was inherent in the Hague Convention, which in principle required the prompt return of the abducted child unless there was a grave risk that the child’s return would expose him to physical or psychological harm. It was not the Court’s task to take the place of the competent authorities in examining whether Noam would be exposed to such harm if he returned to Israel, but to ascertain whether the domestic courts had respected Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly taking into account the child’s best interests. The Court noted in this connection that those courts had not been unanimous, first dismissing then allowing the father’s appeal. According to the experts’ reports there would be a risk for Noam in the event of his return to Israel, and in any event, in the view of the courts, he could return only with his mother so as to avoid significant trauma.   The Court was prepared to accept that in the present case the return order remained within the margin of appreciation afforded to national authorities in such matters. Nevertheless, if such a measure was enforced a certain time after the child’s abduction, that might undermine the pertinence of the Hague Convention, it being essentially an instrument of a procedural nature and not a human rights treaty. Moreover, according to that instrument, a child’s return could not be ordered if he was settled in his new environment. Noam had Swiss nationality and had arrived in the country at the age of two. According to the applicants he had settled well there, attending a municipal secular day nursery and a State ‑ approved private Jewish day nursery. He now went to school in Switzerland and spoke French. Even though he was at an age (7 years old) where he still had a certain capacity for adaptation – as the Chamber had pointed out –, the fact of being uprooted again would probably have serious consequences for him.   The Court noted that restrictions had been imposed by the Israeli courts on the father’s right of access. Moreover, the applicants had submitted, without being contradicted by the Swiss Government, that Noam’s father had remarried and only a few months later had divorced his pregnant wife, who had subsequently brought proceedings against him for failure to pay maintenance. The Court doubted that such circumstances, assuming they were established, would be conducive to Noam’s well-being and development. In addition, whilst the Chamber had found no reason to doubt the credibility of the Israeli authorities’ assurances concerning the risk of criminal sanctions against Ms Neulinger, the Grand Chamber observed that according to a letter of April 2007 from the Israeli Central Authority, the possibility of her not being prosecuted would depend on a number of conditions such as respect for the father’s right of supervised access, pending any further decision. Criminal proceedings could not therefore be ruled out entirely and if Ms Neulinger were to be imprisoned that situation would not be in Noam’s best interests, his mother being the only person to whom he related. In the event of her imprisonment, it was doubtful whether the father would have the capacity to take care of the child, whom he had not seen since his departure, in view of his past conduct and limited financial resources. Ms Neulinger – a Swiss national and therefore entitled to remain in the country – was not therefore totally unjustified in refusing to return to Israel.   In the light of all the foregoing considerations, particularly the more recent developments in the applicants’ situation, as indicated in the provisional-measures order of 2009, the Court was not convinced that it would be in the child’s best interests for him to return to Israel. As to the mother, she would sustain a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life if she were forced to return to Israel. Consequently, the Court held, by 16 votes to one, that there would be a violation of Article 8 in respect of both applicants if the decision ordering Noam’s return to Israel were to be enforced.   Article 6 § 1   The Grand Chamber unanimously confirmed the Chamber’s finding that the complaint under Article 6 § 1 constituted one of the essential points of the complaint under Article 8 and that it was not necessary to examine it separately.     Article 41   By way of just satisfaction, the Court ordered Switzerland to pay the applicants a total of 15,000   euros jointly for costs and expenses.   Separate opinions   Judge Lorenzen expressed a concurring opinion joined by Judge Kalaydjieva. Judges Cabral Barreto and Malinverni each expressed a concurring opinion. Judges Jočienė, Sajó and Tsotsoria expressed a joint separate opinion and Judge Zupančič expressed a dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The text of the judgment exists in English and French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds . *** Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Emma Hellyer (tel: +33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 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] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). 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 .