Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19831013-989382
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 16:51:13+00:00

Document:
PEDERSEN contre le DANEMARK
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche PEDERSEN contre le DANEMARK
Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 6-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la ConventionNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9893/82Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-10-13;9893.82 Parties : Demandeurs : PEDERSENDéfendeurs : le DANEMARKTexte : APPLICATION/REQIJÃTE NÂ° 9893/82 Frank Lysbro PEDERSEN v/DENMAR K Frank Lysbro PEDERSEN c/DANEMAR K
DECISION of 13 October 1983 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 13 octobre 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Artide 6, paragraph 1, and Artlde 8 of the Convention : Reasonable time. Proceedings concerning the award of parental custody over a young child require urgent handling (complaint declared admissible) .
Arficle 6, paragraphe 1 et artic/e 8 de la Convention : DÃ©lai raisonnable. Les procÃ©dures relatives Ã l'anribution de l'autoritÃ© parentale sur un jeune enfant demandem Ã Ãªtre traitÃ©es comme des affaires urgentes (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 58)
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1942 and now living in Valby, Denmark . He is a book-keeper by profession . From 1973 until 1978 he lived with a woman from Greenland . A child of this relationship was bom on 11 April 1977 . On 19 November 1978 the mother left the home taking the child with her . They left Denmark for Jakobshavn, Greenland on 28 November 1978 . The applicant wanted to obtain custody of the child through the courts in accordance with the Danish Custody and Guardianship of Children Act (Myndighedsloven) which provides that a court decision may vest parental custody in the father of a child bom out of wedlock, when certain specified conditions are fulfdled . However, the applicant leamed, after consulting the Ministry for Greenland and th e
Ministry of Justice, that in conformity with the rules governing the Greenland Home Rule, acts of this nature should be submitted to the Greenland Home Rule Authorities for consideration before they could be put into force in Greenland . The provisions of the Custody and Guardianship Act were considered by the Greenland l.egal Affairs Committee, and after submission to the Greenland Local Parliament they were brought into force in Greenland on I January 1980 . Until then the applicant could not petition the courts that he be granted custody . During that period the applicant tried in vain to obtain access to the child . He sued for access on 15 March 1979, but a decision taken by the Jakobshavn Regional Coun on 26 April 1979 was negative . He appealed the decision to the Greenland Court of Appeal (Gr6nlands Landsret) which pronounced judgment on 16 November 1979 dismissing the appeal . He applied to the Ministry of Justice in Copenhagen for leave to appeal against the decision to the Supreme Court, but his petition was rejected on 6 March 1980 . On I January 1980 the Danish Custody and Guardianship of Children Act entered into force with regard to Greenland, but already on 9 December 1979 the applicant had asked the Greenland Court of Appeal (GCA) to have his case brought before this Court as a first instance court according to the Greenland Administration of Justice Act Sec . 1, Art . 15 . In a letter of 10 January 1980 from the GCA the applicant was informed of how to proceed with regard to this transfer . Furthennore he asked the Supreme Court to have his case transferred to Copenhagen because of his unfortunate experiences with the Greanland couns during his unsuccessful attempts to obtain an access right . He was informed by the Supreme Court that such a transfer was not possible under the law . According to the information received on 10 January 1980 from the GCA the applicant instituted proceedings before the Egedesminde Regional Court (ERC) in order to obtain custody of the child . From the transcript of the first court session it appears that the writ was dated 19 March 1980 . On 10 April 1980 the first court session was held at Egedesminde Regional Court, which consisted of the ordinary judge (kredsdommer) and two lay judges of whom one was Mr Kununguaq Kleist Johansen . He is Head of the Social Authorities (Socialinspekt6r) in Jakobshavn, Greenland and knew both the applicant and the mother of the child through the applicant's many previous unsuccessful attempts to gain access to the child while waiting for the new law to enter into force . None of the parties was present during the first session and the Court adjoumed without taking any decisions conceming the case . Mr Johansen has not since dealt with Ihis case . However, the applicant in a letter of 12 October 1980 complained to the GCA about Mr Kleist Johansen's presence during the court session and in a letter of 20 November 1980 the GCA agreed that the episode was unfortunate but since no decision had been taken on 10 April 1980, and since Mr Kleist Johansen was no longer dealing with the case, no further action would be taken .
The case was heard again on 8 May 1980 . The defendant (the mother) was present and testified . The applicant was not present . During this hearing the ERC decided, in compliance with the applicant's request, to bring the case before the GCA with a view to assigning the case to the GCA for hearing and adjudication as a court of first instance . The GCA rejected the applicant's request on 9 June 1980 and returned the case to the Regional Court for further hearings there . In a letter addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of 9 August 1980 the applicant complained about this decision and the fact that the GCA judge (landsdommer) and his assistants could deal with his case . Furthermore he complained that his case was not dealt with speedily enough . On 24 November 1980 the Ministry for Greenland informed the applicant that the GCA's decision was not subject to appeal . This was confirmed by the Ministry of Justice in a letter dated 20 January 1981 . In the meantime the ERC had asked for and obtained a statement of 22 August 1980 from the Social Authorities (Socialudvalget) concerning the living environment of the child . On 3 September 1980 the court sessions then continued with the hearing of the mother and further witnesses . The applicant was not present . In a letter of 5 August 1980 he had informed the Regional Court that he did not dare to come to Egedesminde and he asked to be heard in Denmark . On 8 October 1980 the court sessions continued with the hearing of additional wimesses . The Court decided to adjourn the case and sent it to Copenhagen to hear the applicant due to his request .
On 25 December 1980 the applicant enquired of the GCA about the state of proceedings in his case and was informed on 12 January 1981 that the case had been forwarded by way of the GCA on 12 December 1980 to the City Court of Copenhagen . This prompted the applicant to complain again to the President of the Supreme Court arguing that the Greenland courts were not competent to deal with his case . Again he wanted his case transferred from the Regional Court to the GCA . On 9 February 1981 the Supreme Court infortned the applicant that the decisions made by the Greenland courts during the proceedings were not subject to appeal and that the final decision could eventually be appealed to the Eastem Court of Appeal (0sare Landsret) . On 20 February 1981 the applicant and a witness were heard before the Copenhagen City court . Thereafter the case was returned via the GCA to the Regional Court in Greenland for renewed hearings . On 29 April 1981 the applicant asked the ERC to hear a further witness living in Jakobshavn, Greenland . Furthermore, on 13 May 1981 the applicant, through his lawyer, requested that statements be submitted by the doctors who had examined the child in 1980-1981, that a medica l
report on the chfld's present state of health be procured and that the Medico-Legal Council (RetslaegerÂ®det) in Copenhagen be requested to comment on the case before it was to be heard by the ERC again . In a letter of 9 June 1981 the GCA infonned the applicant's lawyer that it would seem necessary to guide the Regional Court on how to deal with the case and at the same time announced that, considering the nature and scope of the case, it was held necessary to convey the instructions orally when the GCA would pay official visits to several regional courts, among them Egedesminde, in late August 1981 . On 14 July 1981 the applicant complained to the Regional CoÃ»n, to which a new judge (kredsdommer) had been appointed on I July 1981, about the Court's handling of his case . Once again the applicant requested the Court to transfer the case to the GCA for hearing and adjudication as a court of first instance . The applicant simultaneously complained to the GCA about the above-mentioned, requested that the mother be interrogated again and a further witness heard . Finally on 30 July 1981 the applicant requested information from the GCA concerning the Regional Court judges family relationships and occupation . Since his letters remained unanswered the applicant complained to the President of the Supreme Court on 22 September 1981 and was informed on 8 October 1981 that the GCA judge would need a reasonable time to decide on the applicant's various complaints after his return from his official visits to the regional courts . After having obtained oral instructions from the GCA the Regional Court set the date for a new court session on 20 October 1981 . After an examination of the developments of the case the regional judge decided with reference to the applicant's request of 14 July 1981 to ask the GCA to take over . The case was thus adjoumed to await the decision of the GCA . In letters of 8 December 1981 and 5 February 1982 to the President of the Supreme Coun the applicant asked for infonnation about the present state of the proceedings . On 5 Mzrch 1982 the Supreme Court infonned the applicant that the GCA had decided to take over as a court of first instance and that the case would proceed within the end of the month . The formal decision from the GCA to proceed as the court of first instance was taken on 19 March 1982 . At the same time the GCA asked the panies to indicate whether they wished any additional evidence in the matter and, in the affinnative, the nature of such evidence . On 29 March and I April 1982 the applicant requested interrogation of a witness in Jakobshavn and of the defendant who had by now moved to Denmark . He funher requested that the hospitals in Egedesminde and Jakobshavn be asked t o
submit statements . At a hearing on 16 April 1982 the GCA rejected in part to comply with the applicant's requests for evidence as they were considered immaterial for the outcome of the case . The GCA did, however, agree to a renewed interrogation of the defendant who, as was mentioned earlier, was now residing pennanently in Denmark . On 17 June 1982 the case was forwarded to the City Court of Gentofte . The applicant was informed on 29 June 1982 by the City Court that a lawyer had been appointed for him and that he should appear in court on 2 September 1982 . Hereafter the applicant inforrned the GCA on 2 July 1982 of the state of pr oceedings and asked the Court to fix the date for the following session in order to avoid further delays . On 22 July 1980 the GCA judge answered that his case had to follow the nonnal procedure and that he would be informed in due course . On 27 July 1982 the applicant asked the Gentofte City Court to have further witnesses heard and to be allowed to produce further documentation . He was informed that only the GCA could decide in such matters . It appears from the transcript of the Gentofte City Court session on 2 September 1982 that the applicant did produce further documentation and that this later was accepted by the GCA, but nevertheless the applicant complained to the President of the Eastern Court of Appeal (Ostre Landsret) aboÃ»t the matter and later complained that the President's answer first arrived after the 2 September 1982 . Both complaints were dismissed . After the case had been returned from Gentofte City Court the Greenland Court of Appeal held a hearing on 16 September 1982 during which the case, with a long period of notice in order to enable the parties to appear, if desired, was set for pronouncement of judgment on 26 November 1982 . Based on the result of the interrogations conducted by Gentofte City Court the GCA decided at the same time to request a supplementary written statement from the Social Authorities in Gentofte concerning the conditions of the defendant and the child . The statement arrived on 18 November 1982 and the case was heard on 26 November 1982 . Neither of the parties appeared at the hearing and, consequently, the case reached the stage of judgment, to be pronounced on the basis of the existing evidence . The judgment which was served on the applicant on 8 December acquitted the mother and left her with the custody of the child . The GCA found that the mother was capable of taking care of her child and that the interests of the child did not make a transfer of custody to the father necessary .
On 9 December 1982 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Eastern Court of Appeal (Ostre Landsret) which on 24 February 1983 held its first session in which documents were produced . Furthermore the defendant (the mother) asked for the appointment of a lawyer to represent her . Prior to this coun session the Ministry of Justice had on 10 February 1983 granted the applicant a right of access to the child and furthermore the Social Authorities had inquired into the present living environment of the child and found no reason to interfere .
On 24 March 1983 the parties set out their claims during the second court session and the Court of Appeal fued the date for the final hearing . On 2 June 1983 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the GCA referring to its reasons and the additional information mentioned above . On 8 June 1983 the applicant petitioned the Ministry of Justice for leave to appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court . Furthermore on 9 June 1983 he complained to the Attomey General (Rigsadvokaten) about the presiding judge of the Eastern Court of Appeal whom he found incompetent and inesponsible and asked for his dismissal . On 17 August 1983 the applicant's complaint concerning the presiding judge was dismissed by the Special Court of Revision (Den saerlige Rlageret) . On 12 September 1983 the Ministry of Justice refused leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of 2 June 1983 to the Supreme Court .
COMPLAINTS The applicant invokes Article 6 of the Convention and complains that a) his case has not been dealt with by an impartial cour t b) his case has not been dealt with fairl y c) that there was no determination of his civil rights within a reasonable time and with respect for his family life .
THE LAW The applicant complains that a) his case has not been dealt with by an impartial tribunal b) his case has not been dealt with fairly
c) the re has been no determination of his civil rights within a reasonable time and with respect for his family life . The applicant invokes Art . 6(1) of the Convention which reads : "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests ofjuveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice . "
He also invokes An . 8(1) of the Convention which reads : "Everyone has the right to re spect for his p rivate and family life, his home and his correspondence . . With regard to the complaint under a) the applicant re fers to the fact that the "2 Egedesminde Regional Court in its first session on 10 Apr il 1980 consisted of the ordinary judge and two lay judges of whom one was Mr J . He is Head of the Social Authorities ( Socialinspekt6r) in Jakobshavn, Greenland, and knew both the applicant and the mother of the child through the applicant's many previous unsuccessful attempts to obtain access to the child . The applicant claims that since Mr J . a .s Head of the Social Authorities, had agreed to the Social Autho rities' refusals to help him against the mother, Mr J . could not possibly make any impartial decisions in this case . The Commission recalls that this first court session on 10 Ap ri l 1980 was the only one in which Mr J . acted as a lay judge . Furthermore, none of the parties was present and no decision concerning the case was taken . Taking this into consideration, the Commission finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 ( 2) of the Convention . 3 . With regard to the complaint under b) the applicant has constantly held -through numerous complaints-that his case has not been dealt with fairly because of the a tt itude of the courts towards him . In this respect the Commission finds that the cou rts in question have made thorough examinations of the issues and reached their conclusions on the basis of what was considered to be the best interest-s of the parties involved . There is no indication that the courts violated the pri nciples of a fair hea ring . In these circumstances the Commission concludes that this part of the application is also_ manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 ( 2) of the Convention . 4. In his complaint under c) the applicant maintains that the duration of the proceedings re lating to his attempt to have the custody of his child transferred from the mother to him exceeded the reasonable time referred to in Art . 6 (1) of the Convention, which again had repercussions on his rights under Art . 8 . Article 6 ( 1) guarantees, in pa rt icular, that in the determination of his civil ri ghts and obligations everyone is entitled to a hearing within a reasonable time by a tribunal . It is not in dispute that the proceedings with which the present application is concemed, are proceedings to which this guarantee applies . According to the coun transcri pts the present case was instituted on 19 M arc h 1980 and ended on 2 June 1983 with the decision of the Eastem Court of Appeal . The total length of the proceedings is thus app ro ximately 3 years 2 1/2 months . In its case law on the admissibili ty of complaints regarding the reasonablenes s of the duration of civil proceedings the Commission's assessment has been made by
reference to two factors . The first factor is whether or not the interested party has taken himself the necessary steps duly to pursue the action . The second factor is whether or not the application discloses elements indicating that delays have occurred for which the applicant himself cannot be held responsible (See the decisions on the admissibility of Applications NÂ° 1794/63 ; Collection of Decisions 20 p . 8 ; NÂ° 2472/65, Collection 23, p . 42 ; NÂ° 4859/7 1 , Collection 44, p . t ; NÂ° 6248/73, Collection 46, p . 215) . The respondent Govemment have explained that the length of the proceedings in question was attributable to several, mainly geographical and linguistic, factors . Hearings of legal cases in Greenland are up against a number of unique difficulties and will frequently be extremely time-consuming . Furthermore the Government have referred to the applicant's own conduct in the case which, in the opinion of the Govemment, caused considerable problems for the courts, thus prolonging the proceedings . Accordingly, the Government conclude that the application is manifestly illfounded and inadmissible . The applicant is of the opinion that a prolongation of the proceedings for more than two and a half years before the decision of the court of first instance could be pronounced cannot be said to be reasonable . Although he did ask the couns to obtain further evidence he submits that, according to the law in question, he carries the burden of proof and thus is obliged to do so . He also submits that he did on several occasions request hearings to be fixed at earlier dates . Accordingly he tnaintains that his application is well-founded and admissible . The Commission has carried out a preliminary examination in the light of its case-law and the infortnation and arguments submitted to it by the parties conceming the applicant's complaint under Art . 6 (1) in conjunction with Art . 8 of the Convention . The Commission observes that the case in question concemed the question as to whether or not the custody of a child should be transferred from the mother to the father and that the proceedings took more than 3 years . Procedures of that sort require by their very nature to be dealt with urgently . Especially the Commission finds that the period from 19 March 1980 to 26 November 1 982 reveals delays the reasons for which remain unexplained or disputed . Consequently, the Comnvssion is not satisfied that the information given so far concerning the course of proceedings shows that these progressed with reasonable speed . Therefore the Commission does not, on the material before it, come to the conclusion that the application is manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible on that ground . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES ADMISSIBLE and retains for an examination on the me ri ts, and without prejudging in any way the merits of the case ,
the complaint that there has been no determination of the applicant's civil rights within a rea.sonable time and with respect for his family life (Article 6(l) in conjunction with Art . 8 of the Convention) ; DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application .
('TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant denois, nÃ© en 1942 et habitant Valby au Danemark . Il est comptable de son Ã©tat . De 1973 Ã 1978, il a eu une concubine originaire du Groenland . Un enfant est nÃ© de cene liaison le 11 av ri l 1977 . Le 19 novembre 1978, la mÃ¨re quitta le domicile en emmenant l'enfant et tous deux quittÃ¨rent le Danemark pour Jakobshavn au Groenland le 28 novembre 1978 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©sirait obtenir l'auto ritÃ© parentale sur l'enfant par une dÃ©cision de justice conforme Ã la loi danoise sur la garde et la tutelle des enfants (Myndighedsloven), qui stipule qu'un tribunal peut confier au pÃ¨re l'autoritÃ© parentale sur un enfant nÃ© hors mariage lorsque certaines conditions sont rÃ©unies . Cependant, aprÃ¨s avoir consultÃ© le MinistÃ©re du Groenland et le MinistÃ©re de la Justice, le requÃ©rant apprit que, selon la rÃ©glementation du Groenland autonome, lesmesures de ce genre devaient Ãªtre soumises Ã l'examen des autoritÃ©s autonomes du Groenland avant de dÃ©ployer leurs efforts sur ce territoire . Les dispositions de la loi sur la garde et la tutelle des enfants ont Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©es par la commission des affaires juridiques du Groenland et, aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© soumises au parlement local, sont entrÃ©es en vigueur pour ce territoire le 1Â° janvier 1980 . Jusqu'Ã cette date, le requÃ©rant ne pouvait pas demander aux tribunaux de lui accorder la puissance paternelle sur l'enfant . Pendant cette pÃ©riode, le requÃ©rant essaya vainement d'obtenir un doit de visite
Ã l'enfant . i1 le rÃ©clama en justice le 15 mars 1979, mais la dÃ©cision rendue par le tribunal rÃ©gional de Jakobshavn le 26 avril 1979 fut nÃ©gative . 0 fit appel de cette dÃ©cision devant la cour d'appel du Groenland (Gr6nland Landsret), qui le dÃ©bouta par arrÃªt du 16 novembre 1979 . Le requÃ©rant demanda alors au ministÃ¨re de la Justice Ã Copenhague l'autorisation de se pourvoir devant la Cour suprÃªme, mais sa demande fut rejetÃ©e le 6 mars 1980 . -58-
Le IÂ° janvier 1980, Ia loi danoise sur la garde et la mtelle des enfants entra en vigueur en ce qui concerne le Groenland, mais dÃ¨s le 9 dÃ©cembre 1979, le requÃ©rant avait demandÃ© Ã la cour d'appel du Groenland (CAG) d'Ã©voquer son affaire en tant que juridiction de premiÃ¨re instance, conforrnÃ©ment Ã la loi groenlandaise sur l'administration de la justice (Titre 1, art . 15) . Par lettre du 10 janvier 1980, la CAG indiqua au requÃ©rant comment procÃ©der en ce qui conceme ce transfert de dossier . En outre, le requÃ©rant demanda Ã la Cour suprÃªme de transfÃ©rer son dossier Ã Copenhague en raison de ses expÃ©riences malheureuses avec les t ri bunaux du Groenland et ses essais infructueux d'obtenir un droit de visite . La Cour suprÃ©me l'informa que la loi ne permettait pas ce transfe rt . Suite aux informations reÃ§ues le 10 janvier 1980 de la CAG, le requÃ©rant engagea une action devant le t ri bunal rÃ©gional d'Egedesminde afm d'obtenir l'auto ri tÃ© parentale sur son enfant . Du compte rendu de la premiÃ¨re audience il resso rt que l'acte introductif d'instance date du 19 mars 1980 . Le 10 avril 1980 eut lieu la premiÃ¨re audience devant le tribunal rÃ©gional d'Egedesminde, composÃ© du magistrat titulaire (Itredsdommer) et de deux assesseurs dont l'un Ã©tait M . J . Ce dernier est chef du Service des affaires sociales (Socialinspekt6r) Ã Jakobshavn, Groenland . il connaissait aussi bien le requÃ©rant que la mÃ¨re de l'enfant en raison de nombreuses et vaines tentatives dÃ©jÃ faites par le pÃ¨re pour obtenir le droit de rendre visite Ã son enfant en attendant l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la nouvelle lÃ©gislation . Aucune des parties n'assistait Ã la prenÃ¹Ã¨re audience, et le tribunal ajouma l'affaire sans prendre aucune dÃ©cision . Depuis lors, M . J . n'a pas eu Ã connaitre de l'affaire . Cependant, dans une lettre du 12 octobre 1980, le requÃ©rant se plaignit Ã la CAG de la prÃ©sence de M . J . Ã l'audience et, par lettre du 20 novembre 1980, la CAG admit que la chose Ã©tait malheureuse mais prÃ©cisa qu'aucune mesure ne serait prise puisque le tribunal n'avait rien dÃ©cidÃ© le 10 avril 1980 et que M . J . ne s'occupait plus de l'affaire . L'affaire passa de nouveau Ã l'audience le 8 mai 1980 . La dÃ©fenderesse (la mÃ¨re) y assistait et dÃ©posa sous serrnent . Le requÃ©rant ne comparut pas . Lors de cette audience, le tribunal rÃ©gional dÃ©cida, conformÃ©ment Ã la requÃ©te du requÃ©rant, de se dessaisir en faveur de la CAG pour qu'elle examine l'affaire et statue en tant que juridiction de premiÃ©re instance . La CAG rejeta la demande du requÃ©rant le 9 juin 1980 et renvoya Ã nouveau l'affaire devant le tribunal rÃ©gional .
Dans une Iettre adressÃ©e au prÃ©sident de la Cour suprÃ©me le 9 aoÃ»t 1980, le requÃ©rant se plaignit de cette dÃ©cision et du fait que le juge de la CAG (landsdonuner) et ses assesseurs aient pu connaÃ®tre de l'affaire . Il se plaignit en outre de ce que l'affaire n'ait pas Ã©tÃ© exantinÃ©e avec suffisantment de cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© . Le 24 novembre 1980, le ministÃ¨re du Groenland infomta le requÃ©rant que la dÃ©cision de la CAG n'Ã©tait pas susceptible d'appel, ce que confirrna le ministÃ¨re de la Justice par lettre du 20 janvier 1981 .
Entre temps, le tribunal rÃ©gional avait demandÃ© et obtenu le 22 aoÃ»t 1980 une attestation des Se rv ices sociaux ( Socialudvalget) concertumt le cadre de vie de l'enfant . Le 3 septembre 1980, les audiences se poursuivirent devant le tribunal par l'audition de la mÃ¨re et d'autres tÃ©moins . Le requÃ©rant ne compann pas : par le ttre du 5 aoÃ»t 1980 en effet, il avait informÃ© le tribunal rÃ©gional qu'il ne viendrait probablement pas Ã Egedesminde et qu'il demandait Ã @tre entendu au Danemark .Le8octbr1980,lesaudinces pouriventacl'uditon'au tr e s tÃ©moins . Le t ri bunal dÃ©cida d'ajoumer l'affaire et d'adresser le dossier Ã Copenhague pour que le requÃ©rant y soit entendu conformÃ©ment Ã sa demande . Le 25 dÃ©cembre 1980, le requÃ©rant s'informa aupr8s de la CAG de l'Ã©tat de son dossier et fut informÃ© le 12 janvier 1981 que l'affaire avait Ã©tÃ© adressÃ©e par la CAG le 12 dÃ©cembre 1980 au t ri bunal de la ville de Copenhague . Cette dÃ©marche incita le requÃ©rant Ã s'adresser Ã nouveau au prÃ©sident de la Cour suprÃªme en faisant valoir que les tribunaux du Groenland n'Ã©taient pas compÃ©tents pour connai tre de son affaire . Il dÃ©sirait Ã nouveau que son dossier soit transfÃ©rÃ© du tribunal rÃ©gional Ã la CAG . Le 9 fÃ©vrier 1981, la Cour suprÃªme l'infortna que les dÃ©cisions prises par les tribunaux du Groenland au cours de la procÃ©dure n'Ã©taient pas susceptibles d'appel mais qu'un recou rs pouvait Ãªtre formÃ© contre la dÃ©cision finale devant la cour d'appel de l'Est ( 0stre Landsret) . Le 20 fÃ©vrier 1981, le . tribunal de Copenhague entendit le requÃ©rant et un tÃ©moin . Puis l'affaire fut renvoyÃ©e via la CAG au tribunal rÃ©gional de .Groenland pour de nouvelles audiences . Le 29 avril 1981, le requÃ©rant demanda au tribunal rÃ©gional d'entendre un autre tÃ©moin habitant Jakobshavn au Groenland . En outre, le 13 mai 1981, le requÃ©rant demanda, par l'interrnÃ©diaire de son avocat, que soient prÃ©sentÃ©s au t ribunal des certificats de mÃ©decins ayant examinÃ© l'enfant en 1980-1981, que soit fourni un rapport mÃ©dical sur l'Ã© tat de santÃ© actuel de l'enfant et que le conseil mÃ©dico- lÃ©gal ( Retslaeger9det) de Copenhague soit invitÃ© Ã donner son point de vue avant le rÃ©examen du dossier par le tribunal rÃ©gional . Par lettre du 9juin 1981, la CAG informa l'avocat du requÃ©rant qu'il lui paraissait nÃ©cessaire d'indiquer au tribunal rÃ©gional comment traiter ce dossier et annonÃ§a simultanÃ©ment qu'eu Ã©gard Ã la nature et Ã la po rtÃ©e de l'affaire, elle estimait nÃ©cessaire de transmettre des instructions verbalement, lorsque la CAG se rendrait en visite offi cielle dans diffÃ©rents t ri bunaux rÃ©gionaux, dont celui d'Egedesminde, Ã la fin aoÃ¹ t 1981 . Le 14 juillet 1981, le requÃ©rant se plaignit au t ri bunal rÃ©gional, auprÃ¨s duquel un nouveau magistrat (kredsdommer) avait Ã© tÃ© nontmÃ© le 1â¢, juillet 1981, de la maniÃ¨re dont cette instance traitait son affaire . Une fois encore, il demanda au tribunal de se dessaisir en faveur de la CAG pour que celle -c i l'examine et statue comme ju ridiction de premiÃ¨re instance . SimultanÃ©ment, le requÃ©rant formula les mÃªmes dolÃ©ances Ã la CAG et demanda d'interroger Ã nouveau la m8re et d'entendre u n
autre tÃ©moin . Enfin, le 30 juillet 1981, le requÃ©rant demanda Ã la CAG des infomtations sur les relations de famille et la profession des juges du tribunal rÃ©gional . Ces lettres Ã©tant demeurÃ©es sans rÃ©ponse, le requÃ©rant se plaignit au prÃ©sident de la Cour suprÃªme le 22 septembre 1981 et fut inforrnÃ© le 8 octobre 1981 que le juge de la CAG avait besoin d'un dÃ©lai raisonnable pour se prononcer sur les divers griefs du demandeur aprÃ¨s Ãªtre revenu de sa toumÃ©e dans les tribunaux rÃ©gionaux . AprÃ¨s avoir obtenu des instructions verbales de la CAG, le tribunal rÃ©gional fixa au 20 octobre 1981 la date d'une nouvelle audience . AprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© les dÃ©veloppements de l'affaire, le juge rÃ©gional dÃ©cida, en se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã la demande du requÃ©rant en date du 14 juillet 1981, de se dessaisir en faveur de la cour d'appel . L'affaire fut donc ajournÃ©e en attendant la dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel . Par lettres des 8 dÃ©cembre 1981 et 5 fÃ©vrier 1982 adressÃ©es au prÃ©sident de la Cour suprÃ©me, le requÃ©rant sollicita des infortnations sur l'Ã©tat de l'affaire . Le 5 mars 1982, la Cour suprÃªme informa le requÃ©rant que la cour d'appel avait dÃ©cidÃ© de se charger du dossier en tant que juridiction de premiÃ¨re instance et que l'affaire serait reprise avant la fin du mois . C'est le 19 mars 1982 que la cour d'appel prit formellement la dÃ©cision d'agir en tant que juridiction de premiÃ¨re instance . SimultanÃ©ment, elle invita les parties Ã indiquer si elles dÃ©siraient fournir un complÃ©ment de preuve et, si oui, de quelque nature . Les 29 mars et 1" avril 1982, le requÃ©rant demanda l'audition d'un tÃ©moin Ã Jakobshavn, ainsi que de la dÃ©fenderesse, qui avait entre-temps dÃ©mÃ©nagÃ© au Danemark . Il demanda en outre que les hÃ´pitaux d'Egedesminde et de Jakobshavn fournissent des attestations . A l'audience du 16 avril 1982, la cour d'appel rejeta paniellement les demandes prÃ©sentÃ©es par le requÃ©rant pour le complÃ©ment de preuve, qu'elle estimait sans rappon avec l'affaire . La cour accepta cependant un nouvel interrogatoire de la dÃ©fenderesse qui, cotnme il a Ã©tÃ© dit, habite Ã prÃ©sent le Danemark Ã titre permanent . Le 17 juin 1982, le dossier fut transmis au tribunal municipal de Gentofte . Le tribunal informa le requÃ©rant le 29 juin 1982 qu'un avocat avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©signÃ© Ã son intention et qu'il devait comparaitre le 2 septembre 1982 .
Le requÃ©rant en infortna la cour d'appel le 2 juillet 1982 et lui demanda de fixer la date de la prochaine audience afin d'Ã©viter de nouveaux retards . Le 22 juillet 1980, la cour rÃ©pondit que l'affaire suivrait son cours normal et que l'intÃ©ressÃ© serait informÃ© en temps voulu . Le 27 juillet 1982, le requÃ©rant demanda au tribunal de la ville de Gentofte d'entendre d'autres tÃ©moins et de l'autoriser Ã produire des Ã©lÃ©ments complÃ©mentaires . Il lui fut rÃ©pondu que seule la cour d'appel pouvait en dÃ©cider . Le compte rend u
de l'audience du 2 septembre 1982 du tribunal de Gentofte montre que le requÃ©rant produisit effectivement d'autres documents, que la cour d'appel accepta ultÃ©rieurement . Cependant, le requÃ©rant avait dÃ©jÃ protestÃ© auprÃ¨s du prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel de l'Est (Ostre landsret) et se plaignit par la suite que la rÃ©ponse du prÃ©sident n'Ã©tait arrivÃ©e qu'aprÃ¨s le 2 septembre 1982 . L'une et l'autre plaintes furent rejetÃ©es . AprÃ©s renvoi du dossier par le tribunal de Gentofte, la cour d'appel du Groenland tint le 16 septembre 1982 une audience au cours de laquelle elle fixa le prononcÃ© du jugement dans cette affaire au 26 novembre 1982, c'est-Ã dire avec un long prÃ©avis pour permettre aux parties de comparaitre si elles le souhaitaient . Se fondant sur le rÃ©sultat des interrogatoires menÃ©s par le tribunal de Gentofte, la cour d'appel dÃ©cida en mÃ©me temps de demander aux services sociaux de Gentofte une dÃ©claration Ã©crite complÃ©mentaire relative aux conditions de vie de la dÃ©fenderesse et de l'enfant . L'attestation arriva le 18 novembre 1982 et l'affaire fut entendue le 26 novembre 1982 . Les parties n'assistÃ©rent pas Ã l'audience et l'affaire fut donc considÃ©rÃ©e en l'Ã©tat, le jugement devant Ãªtre prononcÃ© sur la base des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve existants . Le jugement fut signifiÃ© au requÃ©rant le 8 dÃ©cembre : il . acquittait . la mÃ¨re et lui laissait l'autoritÃ© parentale sur l'enfant . La cour d'appel estima que lamÃ©re Ã©tait en mesure de prendre soin de l'enfant, dont l'intÃ©rÃªt ne nÃ©cessitait pasun transfen de la garde au pÃ©re .
Le 9 dÃ©cembre 1982, le requÃ©rant fit appel de cette dÃ©cision devant la cour d'appel de l'Est (Ostre Landsret) qui, le 24 fÃ©vrier 1983, tint sa premiÃ¨re audience, au cours de laquelle des documents complÃ©mentaires furent produits . La dÃ©fenderesse (la mÃ¨re) demanda en outre la dÃ©signation d'un avocat pour la reprÃ©senter . Avant cette audience, soit le 10 fÃ©vrier 1983, le ministÃ©re de la Justice avait accordÃ© au requÃ©rant un droit de visite Ã l'enfant . Los services sociaux avaient en outre enquÃªtÃ© sur le cadre de vie de l'enfant et estimÃ© qu'il n'y avait pas lieu d'intervenir . Le 24 mars 1983, les parties exposÃ¨rent leurs griefs au cours de la deuxiÃ¨me audience et la cour d'appel fixa la date de la demiÃ©re audience . Le 2 juin 1983, la cour d'appel confirma la dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel du Groenland en renvoyant Ã ses motifs et aux renseignements complÃ©mentaires susmentionnÃ©s . Le 8 juin 1983, le requÃ©rant sollicita du ministÃ¨re de la Justice l'autorisation de se pourvoir devant la Cour suprÃªme . En outre, le 9 juin 1983, il se plaignit au procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral (Rigsadvokaten) de l'incompÃ©tence et de l'irresponsabilitÃ© du magistrat prÃ©sidant la cotir d'appel de l'Est et demanda son renvoi . Le 1 7 ao0t 1983, la Cour spÃ©ciale de rÃ©vision (Den saerlige Klageret) rejeta le grief du requÃ©rant relatif au juge prÃ©sident . Le 12 septembre 1983, le ministÃ¨re de la Justice refusa l'autorisation de forrner devant la Cour suprÃªme un pourvoi contre l'arrÃªt rendu par la cour d'appel le 2 juin 1983 .
GRIEFS Le requÃ©rant invoque l'article 6 de la Convention et se plaint que : a . sa cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendu par un tribunal impartial ; b . sa cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendu avec Ã©quitÃ© ; c . la contestation portant sur ses droits civils n'a pas Ã©tÃ© tranchÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable et la dÃ©cision n'a pas tenu compte du respect de la vie familiale du requÃ©rant .
EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint que : a . sa cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendue par un tribunal impartial ; b . sa cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendue avec Ã©quitÃ© ; c . la contestation portant sur ses droits civils n'a pas Ã©tÃ© tranchÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable et la dÃ©cision n'a pas tenu compte du respect de sa vie familiale . Le requÃ©rant invoque l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention, ainsi libellÃ© : -Toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablement, publiquement et dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidera, soit des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil, soit du bien-fondÃ© de toute accusation en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre elle . Le jugement doit Ãªtre rendu publiquement, mais l'accÃ©s de la salle d'audience peut Ãªtre interdit Ã la presse et au public pendant la totalitÃ© ou une partie du procÃ¨s dans l'intÃ©rÃªt de la moralitÃ©, de l'ordre public ou de la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, lorsque les intÃ©rÃªts des mineurs ou la protection des parties au procÃ¨s l'exigent, ou dans la mesure jugÃ©e strictement nÃ©cessaire par le tribunal, lorsque dans des circonstances spÃ©ciales la publicitÃ© serait de nature Ã porter atteinte aux intÃ©rÃªts de la justice . -
Il invoque Ã©galement l'article 8, par . 1, de la Convention, ainsi libellÃ© : - Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . 2 . Quant au grief a), le requÃ©rant vise le fait que, dans sa premiÃ¨re audience du 10 avril 1980, le tribunal rÃ©gional d'Egedesminde se composait du juge titulaire et de deux Ã©chevins assesseurs dont M . J . Or, ce dernier est chef du service des affaires sociales (Socialinspektdr) Ã Jakobshavn, Groenland . II connaissait aussi bien le requÃ©rant que la mÃ¨re de l'enfant en raison des nombreuses et vaines tentatives faites par le pÃ¨re pour obtenir le droit de rendre visite Ã son enfant . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend que le chef du Service social ayant dÃ©jÃ souscrit au refus de ce service de l'aider Ã obtenir une dÃ©cision contre la mÃ©re . M . J . ne pouvait pas prendre de dÃ©cision impartiale dans cette affaire .
La Commission rappelle que cette premiÃ¨re audience du 10 avril 1980 est la seule Ã laquelle M . J . a pris part en tant qu'Ã©chevin . Du reste, aucune des parties n'assistait Ã cette audience et aucune dÃ©cision n'y a Ã©tÃ© prise . Aussi, la Commission estime-t-elle que la requÃªte est, sur ce point, manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention . Quant au grief b), le requÃ©rant a .3 constanunent dÃ©clarÃ© - dans de multiple s plaintes - que sa cause n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© entendue Ã©quitablement en raison de l'attitude des tribunaux Ã son Ã©gard . Sur ce point, la Commission estime que les tribunaux en question ont procÃ©dÃ© Ã des examens approfondis des questions en litige et ont statuÃ© selon ce qu'ils estimaient Ãªtre le meilleur pour l'intÃ©rÃªt des parties . Rien n'indique qu'ils aient enfreint les principes d'Ã©quitÃ© du procÃ¨s . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime que la requÃ©te est, sur ce point Ã©galement, manifestement nuJ fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention . 4 . Quant au grief c), le requÃ©rant soutient que la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure relative Ã ses tentatives de se faire attribuer l'autoritÃ© parentale sur l'enfant, confiÃ©e Ã la m8re, a dÃ©passÃ© le dÃ©lai raisonnable prÃ©vu Ã l'article 6, par . I, de la Convention, ce qui, Ã son tour, s'est rÃ©percutÃ© sur les droits garantis par l'article 8 . L'article 6, par . 1, garantit notamment que, pour faire dÃ©cider des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil, toute personne a droit Ã faire entendre sa cause dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable par un tribunal . Il n'est pas contestÃ© que la procÃ©dure ici en question est une procÃ©dure Ã laquelle s'applique cette garantie . Selon les comptes rendus d'audience, l'affaire a Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©e le, 19 mars 1980 et a pris fin le 2 juin 1983 avec l'arrÃªt rendu par la cour d'appel de l'Est . La durÃ©e totale de la procÃ©dure est donc d'environ trois ans et deux mois et demi . Dans sa jurâ¢lsprudence sur la recevabilitÃ© de griefs relatifs au caranÃ©re raisonnable de la durÃ©e d'une procÃ©dure civile, la Commission apprÃ©cie le dÃ©lai en fonction de deux critÃ¨res : I . La partie intÃ©ressÃ©e a-t-elle ou non pris elle-mÃªme les mesures nÃ©cessaires pour diligenter l'affaire? 2 . L'affaire rÃ©vÃ©le-t-elle ou non l'existence de retards dont le requÃ©rant ne saurait Ã©tre tenu pour responsable? (Voir les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃ©tes NÂ° 1794/63, Rec . 20 p . 8 ; NÂ° 2472/65, Rec . 23 p . 42 ; NÂ° 4859/71, Rec . 44 p . 1 ; NÂ° 6248/73, Rec . 46 p . 215) . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a expliquÃ© que la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure en question Ã©tait imputable Ã plusieurs facteurs, essentiellement d'ordre gÃ©ographique et linguistique . Les affaires de justice au Groenland se heurtent Ã un certain nombre de difficultÃ©s, uniques en leur genre, et durent souvent trÃ¨s longtemps . En outre, le Gouvernement a soulignÃ© que, selon lui, le comportement du requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme a posÃ© des problÃ¨mes considÃ©rables aux tribunaux, ce qui a contribuÃ© Ã allonger les dÃ©lais .
Le Gouvernement conclut que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e et donc irrecevable . Le requÃ©rant, quant Ã lui, estime qu'un dÃ©lai de plus dc deux ans et demi avant le prononcÃ© de la dÃ©cision de premiÃ¨re instance ne saurait Ãªtre qualifiÃ© de raisonnable . Il a certes demandÃ© aux tribunaux de procÃ©der Ã des mesures d'instruction complÃ©mentaires, mais il soutient que, selon la loi, c'est Ã lui qu'incombait la charge de la preuve et qu'il Ã©tait donc obligÃ© d'agir de la sone . Il affirme Ã©galement avoir Ã plusieurs reprises demandÃ© Ã avancer la date des audiences . Aussi conclut-il que sa requÃªte est bien fondÃ©e et recevable . La Commission a procÃ©dÃ© Ã un examen prÃ©liminaire Ã la lumiÃ¨re de sajurisprudence et des informations et arguments prÃ©sentÃ©s par les parties, quant au grief que le requÃ©rant tire de l'article 6, par . 1, lu en liaison avec l'article 8 de la Convention . Elle observe que l'affaire conceme le point de savoir si l'exercice de la puissance paternelle sur un enfant devait ou non Ãªtre transfÃ©rÃ© de la mÃ¨re au pÃ¨re et le fait que la procÃ©dure a durÃ© plus de trois ans . Or, par leur nature mÃ©me, les procÃ©dures de ce genre exigent d'Ãªtre traitÃ©es en urgence . La Commission estime notamment que la pÃ©riode du 1 9 mars 1980 au 26 novembre 1982 rÃ©vÃ¨le l'existence de retards dont les raisons demeurent inexpliquÃ©es ou contestÃ©es . Aussi la Commission n'est-elle pas convaincue que les infonnations fournies jusqu'ici sur le dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure montrent que celle-ci s'est dÃ©roulÃ©e avec la cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© raisonnable . En consÃ©quent, au vu des documents qui lui ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s, la Commission ne saurait arriver Ã la conclusion que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e et donc iffecevable de ce chef.
Par ces motifs, la Commission DÃCLARE RECEVABLE et retient, tous moyens de fonds Ã©tant rÃ©se rv Ã©s, le grief selon lequel la contestation sur les droits de caractÃ¨re civil du requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã© tÃ© tranchÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable et n'a pas tenu compte de la vie familiale de l'intÃ©ressÃ© ( anicle 6, par . l, lu en liaison avec l'article 8 de la Convention) ;
DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE pour le surplu s
-65-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 13/10/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 8
 l'article 27
 l'article 27
 l'article 6
 l'article 8
 L'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 8
 l'article 8