Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770516-743476
Timestamp: 2016-10-22 05:42:22+00:00
Document Index: 257809864

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 8", '§ 1', "l'article 26", "l'article 27", '§ 3', "l'article 8", '§ 1', "l'article 8", '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevable ; requête jointe à la requête n° 6878/75Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7434/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-05-16;7434.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7434/7 6 X . v/the UNITED KINGDO M X . c/ROYAUME-UN I
DECISION of 16 May 1977 on the admissibility of the applicatio n DECISION du 16 mai 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 8, paragraph I of the Convention : In withholding the foreign address of the applicant's former wife and his daughter, but at the same time offering to forward them his correspondence, the authorities do not infringe Article 8 . Article 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remedies . In the case of non compliance with an order granting access, the interested party ought to apply for modification of such order.
Article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : En refusant au requÃ©rant de lui communiquer l'adresse Ã l'Ã©trdnger de son ex-Ã©pouse et de sa fille, mais en s'offrant Ã leur transmettre ses lettres, les autoritÃ©s ne violent pas l'article 8 . Article 26 de la Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes . En cas de non-respect d'un droit de visite, il appartient Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© de demander au tribunal de modifier sa dÃ©cision .
IfranCais : voir p. 10b1
The applicant is a British citizen, residing in Condon . In July 1973, the K. County Court dissolved his marriage . Parental authority was awarded to both parents, but the mother was entrusted with the custody . In May 1974, the same Court authorised the mother to take up permanent residence with the child out of England and Wales, while reserving for the applicant the right to "reasonable access" to the child. Thereupon, the mother and child took up residence in Mallorca . In December 1975, the applicant wrote to the British Consul in Palma d e Mallorca to enquire about his former wife's address . The Consul refused, replyin g
that he had instructions not to disclose addresses without the consent of the person concerned. He offered to forward the applicant's correspondence to its addressee . Upon complaint by the applicant, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed this reply .
1 . The applicant has complained that he is being refused permission to see his daughter and to continue with the joint custody of the child . It is true that Article 8111 of the Convention provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and 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 Conventibn it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted accordinq to the generally recognised rules of international law . It is true on . . . May 1974 when granting the applicant's ex-wife leave to takÃ¨ their child out of England the K . County Court also ordered that there be reasonable access to the applicant himself . The applicant complains that he does not now have such access . However, in this particular case the applicant has failed to show either that he has brought to the attention of the County Court the alleged failure of his wife to comply with their original order granting reasonable access to the child or that he has applied for a variation of the access provisions of that same order . He cannot therefore be considered to have exhausted the remedies available to him under English law . Moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, 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 the domestic remedies at his disposal . 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 therefore be rejected under Article 27131 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant has also complained that the Foreign Office conceals information about his daughter and refuses to carry out the decision of the K . County Court . The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 811) of the Convention .
- 104 _
It is true that according to the procedure adopted by the United Kingdom Government in cases such as the present, consular officers should not reveal addresses given to them by the United Kingdom nationals unless the latiers' consent had been given . However, considering that any letters sent by the applicant to his wife care of the Consulate at Palma would be forwarded to the addressee, the Commission concludes that the above policy as to disclosure of addresses is not at variance with the provisions of Article 8111 of the Convention . The Commission also points out that the United Kingdom authorities are not under an obligation to compel the applicant's wife to reply in case she would prefer not to do so . An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in the above Articl e It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27121 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBL E
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits Le requÃ©rant, ciroyen britannique, habite Ã Londres . En juillet 1973, le tribunal de K . a prononcÃ© son divorce. ll a laissÃ© aux deux parents la puissance paternelle sur l'enfant, une fillette de neuf ans, mais a confiÃ© la garde Ã©/a mÃ¨re . En mai 1974, le mÃªme tribunal a autorisÃ© la mÃ¨re Ã fixer la rÃ©sidence permanente de l'enfant hors de l'Angleterre et du pays de Ga//es, rout en rÃ©servant au requÃ©rant un droit de visite Â« raisonnable i . Sur ce, la mÃ©re et l'enfant se sont Ã©tablies Ã© Majorque . En dÃ©cembre 1975, le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© au consul du Royaume-Uni Ã Palma de lui communiquer l'adresse de son ex-femme. Le consul refusa, en indiquant qu'il avait pour instructions de ne communiquer aucune adresse sans 1'accord de 1'intÃ©ressÃ© . Il s'offrit toutefois Ã transmettre les lettres du requÃ©rant B leur destinataire . Sur plainte du requÃ©rant, le MinistÃ©re des affaires Ã©trangÃ¨res (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) lui fit /a mÃ©me rÃ©ponse .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de se voir refuser l'autorisation de voir sa fille et de continuer Ã exercer conjointement la puissance paternelle sur elle . L'article 8, Â§ 1, de la Convention stipule, il est vrai, que toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale . Cependant, la Commission n'a pas Ã se prononcer sur le point de savoir si les faits invoquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant rÃ©vÃ©lent l'apparence d'une violation de cette disposition . En effet, aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention, la Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ©s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . Lorsqu'il a, en mai 1974, autorisÃ© l'ex-Ã©pouse du requÃ©rant Ã emmener leur enfant Ã l'Ã©tranger, le tribunal de K . a, certes, ordonnÃ© aussi qu'il convenait d'assurer au requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme un droit raisonnable de visite Ã l'enfant . Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'Ãªtre actuellement privÃ© de ce droit de visite . En l'occurrence, le requÃ©rant n'a cependant pas dÃ©montrÃ© qu'il avait appelÃ© l'attention du tribunal sur le fait que son Ã©pouse n'aurait pas respectÃ© l'ordonnance accordant au requÃ©rant un droit de visite, ni qu'il avait demandÃ© que fussent modifiÃ©es les dispositions Ã cet effet contenues dans cette mÃªme ordonnance . De ce fait, on ne peut considÃ©rer que le requÃ©rant a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours dont il disposait en droit anglais . Par ailleurs, en examinant l'affaire telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sÃ©ntÃ©e et en procÃ©dant Ã un examen d'office, la Commission n'a relevÃ© aucune circonstance spÃ©ciale susceptible de dispenser le requÃ©rant, selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus, d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes qui lui Ã©taient ouvertes . Il s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant ne s'est pas conformÃ© Ã la clause prÃ©voyant l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes et que cette partie de la requÃªte doil donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©e en application de l'article 27, Â§ 3, de IaConvention . 2 : Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint aussi que le MinistÃ©re des affaires Ã©trangÃ©res refuse de lui communiquer des renseignements sur sa fille et d'appliquer la dÃ©cision du tribunal de K . La Commission a examinÃ© ce grief sous l'angle de l'article 8, Â§ 1, de la Convention . Il est vrai que, selon la procÃ©dure appliquÃ©e en pareilles circonstances par le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, les agents consulaires ne doivent pas communiquer les adresses que leur ont indiquÃ©es des ressortissants britanniques, Ã moins que ceux-ci n'y consentent . ConsidÃ©rant que toute lettre adressÃ©e par le requÃ©rant Ã son Ã©pouse aux bons soins du Consulat Ã Palma serait transmise Ã sa destinataire, la Commission conclut cependant que la pratique dÃ©crite ci-avant e n
matiÃ©re de communication d'adresses n'est pas contraire aux dispositions de l'article 8, Â§ 1, de la Convention . La Commission fait observer par ailleurs que les autoritÃ©s du Royaume-Uni ne sont pas tenues de conlraindre l'Ã©pouse du requÃ©rant Ã rÃ©pondre si telle n'est pas son intention . En examinant ce grief tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© exposÃ© et en procÃ©dant Ã un examen d'office, la Commission n'a donc dÃ©celÃ© aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention et plus particuliÃ©rement par l'article prÃ©citÃ© . Il s'ensuit que, pour le surplus, la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention .
Par ces motifs, la Commission DECLARELA REQUETEIRRECEVABLE .
- 107-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 16/05/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page