CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 septembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560DCDD3 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s9ECC85E2 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:left } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s498E2FC { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1F4F0D6D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s26BAC482 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     459   23.9.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HANSEN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Hansen v. Turkey (application no. 36141/97).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 50,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) 1.     Principal facts The applicant, Sophia Guðrún Hansen, is an Icelandic national, born in 1959 and living in Iceland. In 1981 and 1982 she had two daughters with Halil Al, a Turkish national, with whom she was living in Reykjavik (Iceland). They married in Iceland on 13 April 1984 and separated in November 1989. Mr Al moved from the house they shared in February 1990. In June 1990 Mr Al went to Turkey with the two girls for a holiday, with their mother’s consent. In August Ms Hansen was informed by Mr Al that her daughters would not be returning to Iceland. From that point on Mr Al refused to communicate with her and, over the following months, she received no information about her children. The Icelandic courts granted Ms Hansen a divorce and custody of the children on the grounds that they had been living with her since her separation from Mr Al and that Iceland had always been their home. On 25 October 1991 Ms Hansen lodged her request for divorce and custody in Turkey. During the proceedings – which attracted public and media attention - the children stated that they did not want to stay with her. Ms Hansen’s lawyer maintained, however, that the children were under their father’s influence and were not giving evidence of their own free will. The Turkish courts granted custody to the girls’ father as being in their best interests, on the grounds that they had asked to stay with him and that they had adjusted to their life with him in Istanbul. Ms Hansen was granted access rights. However, between March 1992 and August 1998, she saw her daughters just four times, although she and enforcement officers visited the children’s home around 50 times.   The Turkish courts fined Mr Al for failing to comply with the court’s access orders: 500,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) on 19 January 1994, TRL 1,200,000 on 7 March 1997 and TRL 350,000 on 15 July 1998.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 April 1997. The case was transferred to the Court on 1 November 1998 and declared admissible on 19 June 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2] Complaints Ms Hansen complained under Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the Convention, that the Turkish authorities failed to enforce her right of access to her children and alleged, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that she was discriminated against because she is a Catholic and Icelandic. Decision of the Court Article 8 The Court recalled that proceedings relating to the granting of parental responsibility, including execution of the decision delivered at the end of them, required urgent handling, as the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for relations between the children and the parent who did not live with them. During the proceedings in this case, which had lasted six years and five months, the children had been under immense pressure and had been exposed to media and public attention. Even in such difficult circumstances, however, the authorities had not taken any measures to enable Ms Hansen to gain access to them while the lengthy proceedings were pending. In particular, they failed to seek the advice of social services or the assistance of psychologists or child psychiatrists to facilitate her reunion with her daughters or to create a more cooperative atmosphere between her and her former husband. Although the children had expressed a reluctance to see their mother on several occasions, the Court was of the opinion that they were never given any real opportunity to develop a relationship with her in a calm environment so that they could freely express their feelings for her without any outside pressure. The Court noted that on each scheduled visit the applicant’s former husband arranged to be absent with the children when the enforcement officers arrived. However, the authorities did not take any steps to locate the children to facilitate contact with the applicant. In the face of Mr Al’s consistent refusal to comply with the access arrangements, the authorities should have taken measures to allow the applicant access, including realistic coercive measures against her former husband of a type which were likely to lead to compliance. The Court did not agree with the Government’s submission that the Turkish authorities did everything that could reasonably be expected of them to enforce the applicant’s right of access to her children. It found that the fines imposed on her former husband were neither effective nor adequate. The Turkish authorities therefore failed to make adequate and effective efforts to enforce the applicant’s access rights to her children and thereby violated her right to respect for her family life, as guaranteed by Article 8. Article 14 Finding the applicant’s complaints that she was subjected to discrimination on the ground of her religion or nationality unsubstantiated, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 14. ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.