CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sCDC1D0CC { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .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 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   646 16.12.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PALAU-MARTINEZ v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Palau-Martinez v. France (application no. 64927/01).   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for family life) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); by six votes to one that it was not necessary to rule on an alleged violation of Article 8 read alone; and unanimously that no separate issue arose under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) or Article   9 (freedom of religion) either taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,125 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Seraphine Palau-Martinez, is a French national who was born in 1963 and lives in Alcira (Spain).   The applicant married in 1983 and she and her husband had two children, born in 1984 and 1989. In 1994 the applicant’s husband left her and moved in with his mistress. Mrs Palau-Martinez petitioned for divorce.   On 5 September 1996 the Nîmes tribunal de grande instance granted a divorce, attributing fault to the husband alone. The children would live with their mother in Spain and terms were fixed for access by, and residence with, their father. Mrs Palau-Martinez appealed. On   14   January 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the divorce decree but ruled that the children should live with their father in France, granting the applicant access and residence rights. It   noted that Mrs Palau-Martinez did not deny that she belonged to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and observed that the rules they imposed as regards the upbringing of their members’ children were “essentially objectionable on account of their harshness, their intolerance and the obligation for the children to engage in proselytism”. The Court of Appeal considered that it was in the children’s interest “to escape from the constraints and interdicts imposed by a religion structured as a sect”.   An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed in July 2000.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 20 December 2000 and declared admissible on 4 March 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , and also Lawrence Early, Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant submitted that the residence order providing that the children should live with their father had interfered in her private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 and was discriminatory for the purposes of Articles 8 and 14 taken together. She further complained of a discriminatory interference with her freedom of religion under Article 9, both taken separately and together with Article 14. In addition, she submitted that she had not had a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 of the Convention taken together with Article 14   The Court noted at the outset that when the Court of Appeal ruled that the children should live with their father they had been living with their mother for nearly three and a half years. Consequently, its judgment had constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her family life.   In deciding to change the residence arrangements for the children the Court of Appeal had expressed an opinion on the conditions in which each of the parents was bringing them up. In order to do so it had taken into account information supplied by the parties, and it would appear that it had attached decisive importance to the applicant’s religion, criticising severely the educational principles it was believed to impose. In doing so it had introduced between the parents a difference in treatment grounded on religion.   The Court reiterated that a difference in treatment is discriminatory unless it has “an objective and reasonable justification”. In the present case, the difference in treatment thus introduced by the Court of Appeal had pursued a legitimate aim, namely protection of the children’s interests. As to whether it was proportionate to that aim, the Court noted that in its judgment the Court of Appeal had made observations of a general nature about Jehovah’s Witnesses. There was no practical, direct evidence that the applicant’s religion had influenced the children’s upbringing or daily life. Moreover, whereas the applicant had asked the court to commission a social report, a common practice where custody of children was concerned, the Court of Appeal had not thought it necessary to allow her application. Such a report would no doubt have provided some concrete information about the children’s lives with each of their parents and made it possible to ascertain what impact, if any, their mother’s practice of her religion had had on them. The Court of Appeal had ruled on the basis of general considerations without establishing a link between the children’s living conditions with their mother and their real interests. Although relevant, that reasoning had not been sufficient.   The Court could accordingly not conclude that there had been a reasonably proportionate relationship between the means employed and the aim pursued.   Judge Thomassen expressed a dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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.