Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19771005-763976
Timestamp: 2017-07-28 06:59:54+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7639/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-10-05;7639.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : DANEMARKTexte : APPLICATION/REOUÃTE NÂ° 7639/7 6 X . v/DENMAR K X .c/DANEMAR K DECISION of 5 October 1977 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 5 octobre 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 26 of the Convention : A person, who complains of decisions taken by a Danish administrative authority but who has failed to seek judicial review on the basis of article 63 of the Danish Constitution, has not exhausted domestic remedies .
Article 26 de la Convention : N'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes celui qut; se plaignant de dÃ©cisions prises par une administration danoise, n'a pas rentÃ© un recours judiciaire en se fondant sur l'article 63 de la Constitution danotse .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 172)
The applicant is a citizen of the United States and his wife is Danish . They have two young children . In April 1975, while the spouses were resident in the United States, the applicant's wife left the family home taking the children with her and arrived with them in Denmark . lt turned out that at her request, the Danish Embassy in Washington had included the two children in her passport with the consent of the Danish Minrstry of Justice . The Copenhagen County Administration decided that the custody of the children was provisionally to be awarded to the mother and granted the right of access to the applicanr who, in the meantime, had come to Denmark as well. However, in October 1975, the Ministry of Justice suspended the exercise of his right, as there was reason to belief that the applicant intended to kidnap the children .
The spouses were legally separated in November 1975, and the custody of the children was awarded ro the morher . This was followed by a series of proceedings before the County administrations of Copenhagen in which the applicant requested the extenrion of the right of access ro the children, while their mother objected to it
THE LA W 1 . The Commission has in the first place considered the complaint that the Copenhagen County Administration and the Minisiry of Justice have refused the applicant a normal right of access to his children . Several decisions regarding the extent of the applicant's right to see his children have been given by these authorities ever since 1975 . It further appears that the question about access is, for the present, again pending before the Ministry of Justice . It is true that Article 8 111 of the Convention guarantees generally the right of everyone to respect for his family life . However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision as, under Article 26 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter, after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international la w In the present case the respondent Government have argued that both the decision which will soon be given by the Ministry of Justice as well as all previous decisions taken by the said Ministry and by the Copenhagen Couniy Administration during the past two years regarding the applicant's right to visit his children and the reasons why he was only granted limited access, can be challenged by the applicant before Danish courts of law under Article 63 of the Danish Constitution . As he has failed to seek judicial review of any of these decisions he has not, in the view of the Government, exhausted his domestic remedies . The applicant has argued, on the other hand, that it is not possible for him to challenge the decisions in question before the courts as ihe courts can only examine the validity of an administrative act in case of formal errors, incompetence or disability . To review discretionary decisions such as those in his case would fall outside their competenc e The Commission first recalls that it has frequently held thai, in order to comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention, an applicant is obliged to exhaust every domestic remedy which cannot clearly be said to lack any prospect of success Isee e .g, the decision on admissibility of applications No . 712/60, Retimag S .A . v . the Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook 4, pp . 384, 400 and No . 2257/64, Soltikow v . the Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook 11, pp . 180, 2241 .
It is clear that in the present case the applicant has not brought any proceedings before the Danish courts in regard to the matter of which he complains . The Commission finds that, although it has been discussed whether the remedy indicated by the Government is effective, it cannot be said that it would clearly have been without any prospect of success . Consequently, the applicant cannot be considered to have exhausted the remedies available to him under Danish law . Moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination ex ot/icio, does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting this remedy . It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and this part of the application must in this respect be rejected under Article 27 (3) of the Convention . 2 . The Commission has next considered the allegation that the applicant's children were "kidnapped" from the United States by the Danish Government . It is clear that, following a request from the applicant's wife, the Danish Embassy in Washington sought and obtained, on her behalf, the permission of the Danish Ministry of Justice to have the children's names inserted in her Danish passport . She was thereby enabled to leave the United States with her children without her hunsband's knowledge . Even assuming that these facts could raise an issue under the Convention, the Commission recalls that it is not required to decide whether or not they disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions of the Convention as, under Article 26 thereof, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law . Again, however, the applicant has not shown that he has brought any proceedings before the Danish courts under Article 63 of the Danish Constitution in respect of the decision of the Ministry of Justice to permit the Embassy to insert the children's names in their mother's passport and he cannot, therefore, in this respect either, be considered to have exhausted the remedies at his disposal under Danish law . Moreover, an examination of the case, as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex o//icio, does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have exempted the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the remedy in question . It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and also the remainder of his application must ihereforÃ© be rejected under Article 27 131 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
RÃ©sumÃ© des fait s Le requÃ©rant est citoyen des Etats-Unis et sa femme est danotse Ils ont deux jeunes enfants . En avril 1975, alors que les Ã©poux rÃ©sidaient aux Etats-Unts, la /emme du requÃ©rant quitta le domicile cornjugal en emmenant les deux enfants et gagna avec eux le Danemark. Il s'avÃ©ra qu'Ã sa demande, l'Ambassade du Danemark Ã Washington avait inscrit les deux enfants sur son passeport avec l'autorisation du MinistÃªre danois de la Justice . L'admintsrrarion du district de Copenhague confia provisoirement la garde des enfants 9/a mÃ©re et accorda un droit de vtsite au requÃ©rant qur ; entre-temps, Ã©tait venu lui aussi au Danemark routelors, en acrobre 1975, le MinrstÃ¨re de la Justice suspendit l'exercice de ce droit de visite, certains indices latssant supposer que le requÃ©rant projetait d'enlever les enlants . La sÃ©paration de corps des Ã©poux ayant Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ©e en novembre 1975, la garde des enfants lut attribuÃ©e Ã la mÃ©re . Il s'ensuivit une sÃ©rie de procÃ©dures devant l'administration du district de Copenhague et le MinistÃªre de la Justice, le requÃ©rant demandant un droit de visite Ã©tendu aux enfants, leur mÃ©re s'y opposant .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROI T La Conimission a examinÃ© en premier lieu le grief selon lequel l'administration 1 du district de Copenhague et le MinistÃªre de la Justice auraient refusÃ© au requÃ©rant l'exercice d'un droit normal de visite Ã ses enfants . Ces services ont depuis 1975 rendu plusieurs dÃ©cisions concernant le droit de visite accordÃ© au requÃ©ram Ã l'Ã©gard de ses enfants Cette question du droit de visite semble Ãªtre Ã nouveau en instance devant le MinistÃ©re de la Justice .
Il est vrai que l'article 8 paragraphe 1 de la Convention garantit d'une faÃ§on gÃ©nÃ©rale le droit de toute personne au respect de sa vie familial e La Commission n'est toutefois pas appelÃ©e Ã dÃ©cider si les faits allÃ©guÃ©s par le requÃ©rani rÃ©vÃ©lent une apparence de violation de cette disposition puisqu'aux termes de l'article 26 de la Conventlon, elle ne peut Ã©tre saisie d'une affaire qu'aprÃ©s Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . En l'espÃ©ce, le Gouvernement dÃ©lendeur fait valoir que le requÃ©rant peut, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 63 de la Constitution danoise, contester devant les tribunaux danois la dÃ©cision que rendra prochainement le MinistÃªre de la Justice ,
ainsi d'ailleurs que toutes les dÃ©cisions prises ces deux derniÃ©res annÃ©es par ce MinistÃ©re et par l'Administration du district de Copenhague Ã propos du droit de visite du requÃ©rant Ã ses enfants et les raisons pour lesquelles il ne lui a Ã©tÃ© accordÃ© qu'un droit de visite restreint . Comme le requÃ©rant n'a cherchÃ© Ã soumettre Ã un tribunal aucune de ces dÃ©cisions, le Gouvernement estime qu'il n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã sa disposition . A cela le requÃ©rant rÃ©plique qu'il ne lui est pas possible de contester devant les tribunaux les dÃ©cisions en question car la justice ne peut examiner que la validitÃ© d'un acte administratif entachÃ© d'un vice de forme, d'incompÃ©tence ou d'incapacitÃ© de son auteur . Le rÃ©examen de dÃ©cisions discrÃ©tionnaires, comme celles qui ont Ã©tÃ© prises Ã son endroit, ne relÃ©verait pas de la compÃ©tence des tribunaux . La Commission rappelle d'abord avoir souvent dÃ©clarÃ© que pour remplir les conditions de l'article 26 de la Convention, un requÃ©rant est tenu d'Ã©puiser toutes les voirs de recours internes qui ne peuvent pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme manifestement vouÃ©es Ã l'Ã©chec (voir, par exemple, la dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃ©tes NÂ° 712/60 Retimag S .A . c . RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Annuaire 4 pp . 384, 400 et NÂ° 2257/64, Soltikow c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, Annuaire 11, pp . 180, 224) . En l'espÃ©ce le requÃ©rant n'a, Ã l'Ã©vidence, entamÃ© devant les tribunaux danois aucune action concernant l'affaire dont il se plaint . La Commission estime que, mÃªme s'il a Ã©tÃ© discutÃ© de l'efficacitÃ© du recours indiquÃ© par le Gouvernement, on ne peut pas affirmer qu'un tel recourseÃ»tÃ©tÃ© dÃ©pourvu de toute chance de succÃ©s . Aussi ne saurait-on considÃ©rer que le requÃ©rant a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours Ã sa disposition en droit danols . En outre, un examen de l'aftaire telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©semÃ©e, y compris un examen d'office, ne rÃ©vÃ¨le pas l'existence de circonstances particuliÃ¨res qui auraient pu, conformÃ©ment aux rÃ©gles de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnues, dispenser le requÃ©rant d'Ã©puiser cette voie de recours . II s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait Ã la condition relative Ã l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes et que cette partie de la requÃªte doit Ã cet Ã©gard Ã¨tre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3 de la Convention . 2 . La Commission a examinÃ© en second lieu l'allÃ©garion du requÃ©rant selon laquelle ses enfants auraient Ã©tÃ© Â« enlevÃ©s Â» des Etats-Unis par le Gouvernement danois . Il n'est pas contestÃ© qu'9 la suite d'une demande dÃ©posÃ©e par l'Ã©pouse du requÃ©rant, l'Ambassade du Danemark Ã Washington a demandÃ© et obtenu pour elle l'autorisation du MinistÃ©re danois de la Justice de faire inscrire ses enfants sur son passeport danois . L'Ã©pouse du requÃ©rant pouvait ainsi quitter les Etats-Unis avec ses enfants Ã l'insu de son mari . A supposer mÃ©me que ces faits puissent soulever un problÃ©me au regard de la Convention, la Commission relÃ©ve toutefois qu'elle n'est pas appelÃ©e de dÃ©cider s'ils rÃ©vÃ©lent une quelconque apparence de violation des dispositions de la Convention puisqu'en vertu de l'article 26, elle ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ©s l'Ã©puisement des voie s
de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . Or, sur ce point Ã©galement, le requÃ©rant n'a pas montrÃ© qu'il avait, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 63 de la Constitution danoise, entamÃ© devant les tribunaux danois une quelconque procÃ©dure concernant la dÃ©cision du MinistÃ©re de la Justice d'autoriser l'Ambassade Ã inscrire les noms des enfants sur le passeport de leur mÃ¨re . On ne saurait donc, lÃ encore, considÃ©rer qu'il a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours Ã sa disposition en droit danois . Par ailleurs, un examen de l'affaire telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e, y compris un examen d'office, ne rÃ©vÃ©le pas l'existence de circonstances particuliÃ©res qui auraient pu, conformÃ©ment aux rÃ¨gles de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnues, dispenser le requÃ©rant d'Ã©puiser la voie de recours en question .
Il en dÃ©coule que le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait Ã la condition relative Ã l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes et que le reste de sa requÃ©te doit donc Ã©tre Ã©galement rejetÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3 de la Conventio n
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECLARE LA RE Q UÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
- 174 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 05/10/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 63
 l'article 8
 l'article 26
 l'article 63
 l'article 26
 l'article 27
 l'article 26
 l'article 63
 l'article 27