Source: http://familieslink.co.uk/pages/law_echrcases_ELSHOLZ_v_GERMANY.htm
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 19:37:28
Document Index: 434523612

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 25735', '§ 1', '§ 2', 'in fine', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 63', '§ 79', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2']

law_echrcases_ELSHOLZ_v_GERMANY Families Link International
home | issues | policies | family groups | courts | court reporters | research | law | contacts | donations | Useful Quotes | Law - ECHR - CASE OF ELSHOLZ v. GERMANY (Application no. 25735/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 July 2000 In the case of Elsholz v. Germany,
Mr L. Wildhaber, President, Mrs E. Palm, Mr J.-P. Costa, Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr L. Caflisch, Mr W. Fuhrmann, Mr K. Jungwiert, Mr J. Casadevall, Mr B. Zupancic, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs W. Thomassen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mr T. Pantîru, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr E. Levits, Mr K. Traja, Mr R. Maruste, and also of Mrs M. de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 March and 14 June 2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE
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)1, 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).
8. After consulting the Agent of the Government and the applicant's lawyer, the Grand Chamber decided that it was not necessary to hold a hearing (Rule 59 § 2 in fine). THE FACTS
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
28. As regards the hearing of parents in custody proceedings, section 50a(1) stipulates that the court shall hear the parents in proceedings concerning custody or the administration of the child's assets. In matters relating to custody, the court shall, as a rule, hear the parents personally. In cases concerning placement into public care, the parents shall always be heard. According to paragraph 2 of section 50a, a parent not having custody shall be heard except where it appears that such a hearing would not contribute to the clarification of the matter. THE LAW
“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
37. The Government, referring to the Court's case-law (the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, and the Keegan v. Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290), admitted that the relationship between the applicant and his son came within the notion of family life under Article 8 § 1. However, in their submission, the statutory regulations on the right of access of fathers to their children born out of wedlock did not, as such, amount to an interference with the rights under that provision. But the Government did concede that the German court decisions in the applicant's case, which were based on this legislation, amounted to an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8 § 1.
42. Two other dissenting members of the Commission expressed the opinion that the combination of the refusal to order an independent psychological report or to provide details on the basis of the District Court's evaluation and the applicant's inability to present arguments advocating such a report or evaluation at a hearing before the Regional Court had a particularly adverse effect on his interests because access to the child had originally been denied by reason of the mother's objections, which she had communicated to the child. In these circumstances, the applicant was not involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests. The two dissenting members thus concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8. B. The Court's assessment
53. The combination of the refusal to order an independent psychological report and the absence of a hearing before the Regional Court reveals, in the Court's opinion, an insufficient involvement of the applicant in the decision-making process. The Court thus concludes that the national authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation, thereby violating the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8
61. Consequently, it cannot be said on the facts of the present case that a divorced father would have been treated more favourably. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The Court, having regard to its findings with respect to Article 8 (see paragraphs 52-53 above), considers that in the present case, because of the lack of psychological expert evidence and the circumstance that the Regional Court did not conduct a further hearing although, in the Court's view, the applicant's appeal raised questions of fact and law which could not adequately be resolved on the basis of the written material at the disposal of the Regional Court, the proceedings, taken as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a fair and public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. There has thus been a breach of this provision. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage
71. The Court thus concludes that the applicant suffered some non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation of the Convention. None of the factors cited above lends itself to precise quantification. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41, the Court awards the applicant DEM 35,000. B. Costs and expenses
73. If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention, it may award the applicant not only the costs and expenses incurred before the organs of the Convention, but also those incurred before the national courts for the prevention or redress of the violation (see, in particular, the Hertel v. Switzerland judgment of 25 August 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2334, § 63). In the instant case, having regard to the subject matter of the proceedings before the German courts and what was at stake in them, the applicant is entitled to request payment of the costs and expenses incurred before these courts in addition to the costs and expenses of the proceedings before the Commission and the Court. The Court finds that the costs and expenses are shown to have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 79, ECHR 1999-V).
Under the circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant DEM 12,584.26, as requested. C. Default interest
74. According to the information available to the Court, the statutory rate of interest applicable in Germany at the date of adoption of the present judgment is 4% per annum. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 2. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8; 3. Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; 4. Holds unanimously
(b) that simple interest at an annual rate of 4% shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; 5. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the following partly dissenting opinion of Mr Baka joined by Mrs Palm, Mr Hedigan and Mr Levits is annexed to this judgment. L.W. M.B. PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BAKA JOINED BY JUDGES PALM, HEDIGAN and levits
1. Note by the Registry. Copies of the report are obtainable from the Registry. Disclaimer The contents on these pages are provided as information only. No responsibility or liability is accepted by or on behalf of FLINT for any errors, omissions, or misleading statements on these pages, or any site to which these pages connect, whether provided by FLINT or by any organisation, company or individual. No mention of any organisation, company or individual, whether on these pages or on other sites to which these pages are linked, shall imply any approval or warranty as to the standing and capability of any such organisations, companies or individuals on the part of FLINT. All rights reserved. top