Source: http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/legal/internat/elsholz.htm
Timestamp: 2018-01-24 05:50:32
Document Index: 730650011

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 44', '§ 52', '§ 51', '§ 55', '§ 59', '§ 1', '§ 40', '§ 33', '§ 58']

Mr	B. Zupan i ,
Mr	T. Pan cîru,
1. The case was referred to the Court in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 7 June 1999 and by a German national, Mr Egbert Elsholz ("the applicant"), on 25 May 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention).
4. The Commission declared the application partly admissible on 30 June 1997. In its report of 1 March 1999 (former Article 31 of the Convention), it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 (fifteen votes to twelve); that no separate issue arose as regarded Article 8 taken alone (fifteen votes to twelve); and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (seventeen votes to ten).
5. Before the Court the applicant was represented by Mr Peter Koeppel, a lawyer practising in Munich (Germany). The German Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mrs H. Voelskow-Thies, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
13. The District Court, after a hearing on 4 November 1992 and having heard C. on 9 November 1992, dismissed the applicant's request on 4 December 1992. The Court observed that Article 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) concerning the father’s right to personal contact with his child born out of wedlock (see paragraph 24 below) was conceived as an exemption clause which had to be construed strictly. Thus, the competent court should order such access only if this was advantageous and beneficial for the child's well-being. According to the court's findings, these conditions were not met in the applicant's case. The District Court noted that the child had been heard and had stated that he no longer wished to see his father who, according to the child, was bad and had beaten his mother repeatedly. The mother likewise had strong objections to the applicant which she had imparted on the child, so that the child had no possibility of building an unbiased relationship with his father. The District Court concluded that contacts with the father would not enhance the child's well-being.
In so doing, the Court referred to its prior decision of 4 December 1992 and found that the conditions under Article 1711 of the Civil Code were not met. It noted that the applicant's relationship with the child's mother was so strained that the enforcement of access rights could not be envisaged as this would not be in the interest of the child's well-being. The child knew about his mother's objections to the applicant and had adopted them. If C. were to be with the applicant against his mother's will, this would put him into a loyalty conflict which he could not cope with and which would affect his well-being. The Court added that it was irrelevant which parent was responsible for the tensions; it placed particular emphasis on the fact that important tensions existed and that there was a risk that any further contacts with the father would affect the child's undisturbed development in the family of the custodial parent. After two long interviews with the child, the District Court reached the conclusion that his development would be endangered if the child had to take up contacts with his father contrary to his mother’s will. At these interviews the child had called his father "nasty" or "stupid", adding that on no account he wanted to see him and said also "Mummy always says Egbert is not my father. Mummy is afraid of Egbert".
A.	Legislation on family matters currently in force
"The father and the mother have the right and the duty to exercise parental authority (elterliche Sorge) over a minor child. The parental authority includes the custody (Personensorge) and the care of property (Vermögenssorge) of the child."
B.	Legislation on family matters in force at the material time
"1. A parent not having custody has the right to personal contact with the child. The parent not having custody and the person having custody must not do anything that would harm the child's relationship with others or seriously interfere with the child's upbringing.
4. Where both parents have custody and are separated not merely temporarily, the foregoing provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis."
"Custody over a minor child born out of wedlock is exercised by the child's mother…"
"1. The person having custody of the child shall determine the father’s right of access to the child. Article 1634 § 1, second sentence, applies by analogy.
4. Where appropriate, the youth office shall mediate between the father and the person who exercises the right of custody."
C.	The Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings
I.	ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life ... .2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society ... for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
A.	Arguments before the Court
32. In their decisions, both the Mettmann District Court and the Wuppertal Regional Court refused the applicant access to his son on the grounds that the bad relationship between the parents exposed the child to a conflict of loyalty, and that at the two court hearings the child called his father "nasty" or "stupid", adding that on no account did he want to see him. At the second hearing, the child, who was then almost six years old, said: "Mummy always says Egbert is not my father. Mummy is afraid of Egbert". According to the applicant, this statement was made under the influence of the mother or one of her close acquaintances and with her approval. Another statement made by the child and recorded by the court showed that the mother had scared the child by running away when meeting the father by coincidence.
36. The applicant concluded that the German authorities violated their duty resulting from Article 8 of the Convention to protect citizens' human rights, in that they had failed, up to now, to make the results of international research on the PAS known to the German youth authorities and family courts by providing them with suitable training.
2.	The Government
3.	The Commission
1.	Whether there was an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention
43. The Court recalls that the notion of family under this provision is not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth. Thus there exists between the child and his parents a bond amounting to family life (see the Keegan v. Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, pp. 18-19, § 44). The Court further recalls that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, even if the relationship between the parents has broken down, and domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see, amongst others, the Johansen v. Norway judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, pp. 1001-1002, § 52, and the Bronda v. Italy judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1489, § 51).
45. The interference mentioned in the preceding paragraph constitutes a violation of Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues an aim or aims that are legitimate under paragraph 2 of this provision and can be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society".
2.	Whether the interference was justified
a.	"In accordance with the law"
b.	Legitimate aim
47. In the Court’s view the court decisions of which the applicant complained were clearly aimed at protecting the "health or morals" and the "rights and freedoms" of the child. Accordingly they pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8.
c.	"Necessary in a democratic society"
48. In determining whether the impugned measure was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify this measure were relevant and sufficient for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention. Undoubtedly, consideration of what lies in the best interest of the child is of crucial importance in every case of this kind. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the national authorities have the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned. It follows from these considerations that the Court’s task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding custody and access issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55, and, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Bronda v. Italy judgment, p. 1491, § 59).
II.	ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8
60. The Court notes that the District Court’s reasoning of 17 December 1993, after hearing the child and both parents, was clearly based on the danger to the child’s development if he had to take up contact with the applicant contrary to the will of the mother. The risk to the child’s welfare was thus the paramount consideration. The Regional Court, on appeal, equally based its decision of 21 January 1994 on the finding that contacts would negatively affect the child. In the Court’s view, the applicant has not shown that, in a similar situation, a divorced father would have been treated more favourably. Finally, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed that the ordinary courts had applied the same test as would have been applied to a divorced father.
III.	ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
IV.	APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
(a)	that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable:
(i)	35,000 (thirty five thousand) German marks in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)	12,584 (twelve thousand five hundred and eighty four) German marks and 26 (twenty six) pfennigs in respect of costs and expenses;
(b)	that simple interest at an annual rate of 4% shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
As to the section which deals with the interpretation of Article 8 I agree with the majority that the relevant decisions of the national courts were in accordance with the law and that they served a legitimate aim, namely protecting the interests of the child, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8. I however disagree with the majority’s opinion that "the refusal to order an independent psychological report and the absence of a hearing before the Regional Court" amounts to "an insufficient involvement of the applicant in the decision-making process, consequently the national authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation" under Article 8.
The Court has constantly emphasised that the national authorities are better placed to evaluate the evidence adduced before them (see among other authorities the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 18, § 40). It has also pointed out that "as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce." (Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp 32, § 33).
I am also of the opinion that the decision of the Regional Court not to conduct a further oral hearing and to decide on the basis of the written material was in the circumstances a reasonable and acceptable decision. It is very hard to believe that less than two months after the first instance oral hearings and interviews the Regional Court would have obtained any further benefit from a repeated oral hearing on that level. The Regional Court explained the reasons for its decision. Moreover, the Court has held on a number of occasions that "provided that there has been a public hearing at the first instance, the absence of public hearings at a second and the third instances may be justified by the special features of the proceedings at issue" (Monnel and Morris v. United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p.22, § 58).