Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19771212-791177
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 10:08:24+00:00
Document Index: 253565273

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 27", "l'article 2", "l'article 27"]

X c. SUEDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche X c. SUEDE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7911/77Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-12-12;7911.77 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : XDéfendeurs : SUEDETexte : APPLICATIDN/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7911/77 X . v/Swede n
X . c/SuZd e DECISION of 12 December 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISIDN du 12 dÃ©cembre 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Convention : Thls provision guarantees in principle the right of each mother or lather to maintain contacts with their children . Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention : Exceptional circumstances justifying the refusal to the father of the right of access to his children, as being a measure necessary for their healrh and morals . Article 2 of the First Protocol : The right of parents to ensure the education of their children in accordance with their religion and philosophical convictions as an integral part of the right of custody . It may not be exercised by the parr,nt from whom that custody has been withdrawn by judictÃ¢l decision .
Article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Cette disposition garantit en principe B tout pÃ¨re ou mÃ©re le droit d'entretenir des contacts avec ses enfants . Article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Circonstances exceptionnelles justi/iant le refus Ã un pÃ©re d'un droit de visite Ã ses enfants, en tant que mesure nÃ©cessaire Ã la protection de leur santÃ© physique et morale . Article 2 du Protocole additionnel : Le droit des parents d'assurer l'Ã©ducation de leurs enfants conlormÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions religieuses et philosophiques est un attribut de l'autoritÃ© parentale .
Il ne peut Ã©tre exercÃ© par celui des
parents Ã¢ qui cette autoritÃ© a Ã©tÃ© retirÃ©e par dÃ©cision judiciaire .
In the case in point, while the lawyer's visits were forbidden after the decision to place the accused in solilary confirnement, it must be pointed out that the applicant was free to inform his counsel in wriling, under supervision of the court, of the progress of the investigatory proceedings In addilion, he could have requested a relaxation of his isolation where his counsel's visits were concerned This being so, the relative and temporary limitation of contacts between the applicant and his defence counsel, seen in the context of the criminal proceedings as a whcle, canriot be said to havÃ© constituted a refusal on the part of the judicial authorities to grant the applicant the necessary facilities for the preparation of his defence . It follows that the application, in this respect, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning ot Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons the Commissio n
ffranÃ§ais : voir p . 195)
The applicant's divorce was pronounced in January 1975 and parental authority in respect of both chifdren (a son born in 1967 and a daughter born in 19771 was accorded to their mother. The question of access of the farher to the children was ruled upon by the court. On appeal of both parties, the Court of appeal confirmed the custody for the mother but refused afl right of access to the applicant, basing itself on the opinion of experts who had put emphasis on his violent character . The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the applicant .
THE LAW (Extract ) .. .. ... .. ..... 2 . The applicant has [also] complained about his being refused access to his children . The Commission recognises that in principle a parent has always a right of access to his or her child under paragraph (1) of Article 8 of the Convention . However, also when deciding the question of access to children on the breaking up ol a marriage, domestic courts may properly take into account under paragraph 2 of Article 8 a child's mental stability and physical well-being . In every case where a domestic court has refused to a parer .t a right of access to his or her children, the Commission nevertheless ultimately has the task to judge whether such refusal is justifiable under the prcvisions of paragraph 2 of Article 8 . In the present case the lower Court gave the applicant a limited right of access to his children, whilst the Court of Appeal later concluded that the applicant should not have any right to see them at all . The Appeal Court particularly referred to theevidence regarding the applicant's having maltreated his children ; a fact that had been further proved before the Court . It was noted that the maltreatment appeared particularly remarkable because of its severity and the low age of the children at the time of its being committed . There was moreover the possibility that the applicant would realise his expressed intention 1 0 take his children out of the countiy . Finally, the Court also considered the opinion of Mr . B :, a psychologist, who had apprehensions about a right of access for the applicant as it could in the present case be a psychological strain for the children if their father was allowed to see them . It consequently appears that there was evidence before the Swedish Court ol Appeal from which it could properly arrive at its appreciation that to grant the applicant a right of access to his children might seriously endanger their health and morals This consideration constitutes an exceptional circumstance which, in the Commissicn's view, clearly justifies, under Article 8 (2) of the Convention, the measures taken in the case .
-.193-
An examination of this complaint, as it has been submitted, including an exarnination 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 lalsol this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Conventio n 3 . Without invoking the Convention the applicant finally also appears to complain that he has beÃ©n prevented from having his children educated in accordance with his cultural and religious background . The Commission has considered this complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No . I to the Convention . This Article provides that "No person shall be denied the right to education" and that " . . the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" : However, the right to determine the mode of a child's education is an integral part of the right of custody which in the present case has been removed from the applicant by the Swedish courts Therefore, the applicant has no longer the right to determine the mannerâ¢in which his children's education is carried out Icf . application No . 5608/72, X . v . the United Kingdom, Collection of Decisions 44, p . 66) . An examination 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 Article . It follows that [also the remainder ofl the application is manifestly illfounded within the meaning of ArticlÃ© 27 (2) of the Convention .
_1gq_
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents Le divorce du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ© en janvier 1975 et l'autoritÃ© parentale sur les deux enfants (un fils nÃ© en 1967 et une fille nÃ©e en 79711 a Ã©tÃ© attribuÃ©e Ã la mÃ¨re . Le tribunal a rÃ©glementÃ© le droit de visite du requÃ©rant Ã ses enfants . Sur appel des deux parties, la cour d'appel a confirmÃ© l'attribution B/a mÃ©re de l'auroritÃ© parentale mais a relusÃ© tout droit de visite au requÃ©rant, en se fondant sur des avis d'experts qui avaient soulignÃ© ses tendances violentes.
La cour suprÃªme a rejetÃ© un n :cours du requÃ©rant. EN DROIT (Extrait ) . .. . ... .. .. ... 2 . Le requÃ©rant se piaint (en outre) qu'on lui a refusÃ© le droit de rendre visite Ã ses enfants . La Commission reconnait qu'aux termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 1 de la Convention, un parent a en principe toujours le droit de voir son enfant . Toutefois, lorsqu'ils ont Ã statuer sur la question relative au droit de visite lors de la dissolution d'un mariage, les tribunaux internes peuvent Ã bon droit, conformÃ©ment Ã© l'article 8, paragraphe 2, tenir compte de l'Ã©quilibre mental et du bien-Ã©tre physique de l'enfant . Dans tous les cas oÃ¹ un tribunal national refuse Ã l'un des parents le droit de voir son enfant, la Commission est nÃ©anmoins appelÃ©e, en dernier ressort, Ã apprÃ©cier si ce refus se justifie au regard de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . En l'espÃ¨ce, le tribunal de premiÃ©re instance a accordÃ© au requÃ©rant un droit de visite limitÃ©, mais la cour d'appel a jugÃ© ultÃ©rieurement que le requÃ©rant devait Ã©tre privÃ© de tout droit de visite . La cour d'appel a tenu compte particuliÃ¨rement des tÃ©moignages sur les mauvais traitements infligÃ©s par le requÃ©rant Ã ses enfants et au sujet desquels des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve supplÃ©mentaires avaient Ã©tÃ© produits devant la cour . Elle a relevÃ© que ces mauvais traitements paraissaient trÃ©s remarquables, vu leur sÃ©vÃ©ritÃ© et le bas Ã¢ge des enfants Ã l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ ils avaient Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©s . Par ailleurs, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait susceptible de mettre Ã exÃ©cution l'intention qu'il avait manifestÃ©e d'emmener ses enfants Ã l'Ã©tranger . En dernier lieu, la Cour a pris aussi en considÃ©ration l'avis de M . B ., psychologue, qui apprÃ©hendait les consÃ©quences de l'octroi d'un droit de visite au requÃ©rant, Ã©tant donnÃ© qu'en l'espÃ©ce les visites du pÃ¨re pouvaient provoquer des tensions psychologiques chez les enfants . Il apparait en consÃ©quence que la cour d'appel suÃ©doise a Ã©tÃ© saisie de moyens de preuve qui lui ont permis en fin de compte d'estimer Ã bon droit que l'octroi d'un droit de visite au requÃ©rant risquait de nuire gravement Ã la
santÃ© physique et morale de ses enfants . Cette considÃ©ration constitue une circonstance exceptionnelle, qui, selon la Commission, justifie clairement sous l'angle de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 de la Convention, les mesures prises en l'espÃ©ce . L'examen de ce grief ne permet pas, en l'Ã©tat du dossier, de dÃ©gager, mÃªme d'office, l'apparence d'une violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention, et en particulier par l'article susmentionnÃ© . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃ©te est lelle aussil manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . 3 . Sans invoquer la Convention, le requÃ©rant se plaint aussi, en dernier lieu, d'avoir Ã©tÃ© emp@chÃ© d'Ã©lever ses enfants conformÃ©ment Ã ses convictions religieuses et philosophiques La Commission a examinÃ© ce grief sous l'angle de l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel . Cet article dispose que Â« Nul ne peut se voir refuser le droit Ã l'instruction Â», et que Â« L'Etat . . . respectera le droit des parents d'assurer cette Ã©ducation et cet enseignement conformÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions religieuses et philosophiques n . Toutefois, le droit de dÃ©terminer le type d'Ã©ducation Ã donner Ã un enfant fait partie intÃ©grante de l'autoritÃ© parentale qui, en l'espÃ©ce, a Ã©tÃ© retirÃ©e au requÃ©rant par les tribunaux suÃ©dois . Il s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'a plus le droit de dÃ©terminer la maniÃ¨re dont ses enfants seront Ã©duquÃ©s (cf . RequÃªte NÂ° 5608/72, X . contre le Royaume-Uni, Recueil 44, p . 66) . L'examen de ce grief ne permet donc pas, en l'Ã©tat du dossier, de dÃ©gager, mÃªme d'office, l'apparence d'une violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention, et en particulier par l'article susmentionnÃ© . Il s'ensuit que (le restant de) la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention .
- 196 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/12/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page