Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19790504-804577
Timestamp: 2016-12-05 13:08:36+00:00
Document Index: 3267658

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 14', 'art. 18', 'arrêt ', "l'article 8", "l'article 25", "l'article 25", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

X. c. SUEDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche X. c. SUEDE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 10 ; Non-violation de l'art. 14+10 ; Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 18 ; Satisfaction équitable réservéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8045/77Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1979-05-04;8045.77 Analyses : (Art. 10-1) LIBERTE D'EXPRESSION, (Art. 10-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 10-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 10-2) PREVUE PAR LA LOI, (Art. 11-2) PROTECTION DES DROITS ET LIBERTES D'AUTRUIParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUEDETexte : APPLICATIQN/REQUÃTE NÂ° 8045/77 X . v/SWEDE N X .c/SUÃD E DECISION of 4 May 1979 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISIQN du 4 mai 1979 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artic% 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention : After divorce, father forced to exercise his right of access to his children in the country where they live with their mother and not in the remote country where he has his own residence. Measure justified, as the risk of non-reappearance cannot be excluded in the present case. Article 25 of the Convention : The parent, who, after divorce has neither the cusrody or care and control of the children, cannot introduce an application on their behalf, unless especialty empowered to rhat effect by them.
Article B, paragraphe 2, de /a Convention : Obligation faire au pÃ©re, aprÃ©s divorce, d'exercer son droit de visite Ã ses enfants dans le pays oÃ¹ ils se trouvent avec leur mÃ¨re, et non dans le pays Jointain - oÃ¹ il a lui-mÃªme son domicile. Mesure justifiÃ©e, le risque de non-reprÃ©sentation des enfants ne pouvant Ãªtre exclu en espÃ¨ce . Artic%25 de la Convention : Celui du parent qui, aprÃ©s divorce, n'est titufaire ni de f'autoritÃ© parentale ni du droit de garde sur ses enfants, ne peut introduire une requÃªte en leur nom, sauf mandat spÃ©cial donnÃ© par eux.
I franÃ§ais : voir p. 10 41
The applicant is a japanese citizen . During his residence in Sweden h e married a Swedish woman . Two children were born from this marriage, one in 196 4 and the other in 1971 . They both have Japanese nationality .
The spouses where then divorced . By judgment of December 1975, the custody, care and conrrol of the children were awarded to the mother, while the father was granted a nght of access for several weeks every year . The children acquired Swedish citizenship . As the applicant had returned to Japan, the mother asked the Court o f Appeal to specify that the right of access could only be exercised in Sweden . The applicant objected to this in October 1976. The Court of Appeal granted the mother's request . ,
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant has complained that both his sons and himself are the victims of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention because of the refusal of the Swedish courts to allow him to see his children outside Sweden . He also complains about the fact that his children have been granted Swedish citizenship and therefore will have to perform military service in Sweden . The Commission understands -that the applicant has introduced hi s .a present complaint not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of his two children . It is recalled in this respect that, according to Article 25 of the Convention, the Commission is only competent to examine an application lodged by a person claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention . However, the Commission notes that the applicant does not have the custody-parental rights of his children, such rights having been awarded to their mother . It is consequently the applicant's former wife who has the right to act on the children's behalf in the exercise of the custody-parental authority . Moreover, the applicant has not shown that he is otherwise authorised to represent his children with respect to this application, or that they expressed any wish as to their father's introducing claims on their behalf before the Commission . . . . For the above reasons, the Commission concludes that, so far as the applicant has acted on behalf of his children, he is not competent to bring the present complaints under Article 25 of the Convention . It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, par . agrph2,ofteCnvÃ©i b. It thus remains to be considered, in the first place, whether there is any indication that the applicant himself has been the victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention . ._708
It is true that the first paragraph of Article 8 guarantees generally to everyone the right to respect for his private and family life . However, the second paragraph of Article 8 allows interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right when "necessary in a democratic society . . . for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" . Now, the Commission understands, in the first place, that the applicant does not complain about the decision to award the custody of the children to their mother . Nor does he appear to complain about the period, as such, during which he is entitled to see his children . The question which the Commission is called upon to consider in the present case is therefore limited to the fact that the right of access granted to the applicant has to be exercised in Sweden . The Commission recognises that, where parents are divorced and i n other cases when the communal life of the parents is interrupted, it is legitimate and even necessary for the national law to provide rules covering the relationship between parents and children which differ from the rules which are applicable when the family unit is still maintained (cf e .g . application No . 2699/65, X . v . the Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook 11, p . 376 and application No . 5608/72, X v . the United Kingdom, Collection of Decisions 44, p . 66 at p . 68) . The Commission has also stated on various occasions that, when a parent has been deprived of the custody of his child, it may be necessary for the national courts to place restrictions on his right of access to the child, such restrictions being imposed in the child's interest and therefore justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention Icf . e .g . the aforementioned application No . 5608/72, loc. cit .) . In examining the present case the Commission has in particular had regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal . It appears that this court carefully examined the conditions of the case and concluded that there was a possibility ihat the applicant would not positively assist in sending the children back to Sweden were he allowed to see them in Japan, since this would require both economic and practical efforts on his part . According to the Court, the investigation carried out in the case did not give convincing support for expecting that the applicant would be willing to co-operate in this way . It would thus seem that the Court of Appeal duly balanced the applicant's interest in having his children come to Japan on the one hand, and, on the other hand the interest of the children's mother and the children themselves in securing that they were duly returned to Sweden at the end of their visits to Japan . The Commission finally notes that the applicant has submitted no evidence to show that the finding of the Court of Appeal was incorrect and that its order was not justified . In all these circumstances, the Commission is satisfied that the restrictions imposed by the Swedish courts on the applicant' s
right of access to his children was justified under Article 8, paragraph 2, as being necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention :
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinent s Le requÃ©rant est de nationalitÃ© japonaise . Alors qu'il rÃ©sidait en SuÃ©de, il a contractÃ© mariage avec une SuÃ©doise . Deux enfants sont nÃ©s de ce mariage, en 196 4 et 1971, respectivement . Ils possÃ¨dent la nationalitÃ© japonaise . Les Ã©poux ont ensuite divorcÃ©. Parjugement prbnoncÃ© en dÃ©cembre 1975, le tribunal a attribuÃ© Ã la mÃ©re l'autoritÃ© parentale sur les enfants et la garde de ceux-ci, tout en rÃ©seniant au pÃ©re un droit de visite de plusieurs semaines par an . Les enfants ont acquis la nationalitÃ© suÃ©doise . Le requÃ©rant ayant regagnÃ© le Japon, la mÃ©re . demanda Ala cour d'appel de prÃ©ciser que le droit de visite ne pourrait @tie exercÃ© qu'en SuÃ¨de. Le requÃ©rant s'y est opposÃ© . _
En octobre 1976, la cour d'appel a fait droit Ã©/a demande de la mÃ©rÃ©.
(TRADUCTION ) EN DROIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce qu'aussi bien ses fils que lui-mÃªme soient victimes d'une violation del'article 8 de la Convention, les tribunaux suÃ©dois refusant de l'autoriser Ã voir ses enfants en dehors de la SuÃ©de . Il se plaint, par ailleurs, de ce que ses enfants se soient vus accorder la nationalitÃ© suÃ©doise et doivent par consÃ©quent accomplir leurs obligations militaires en . . . . SuÃ¨de . a . La Commission croit comprendre que le requÃ©rant a dAposÃ© sa prÃ©sente plainte non seulement en son nom propre, mais aussi au nom de ses deux enfants . Il est rappelÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard que, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 25 de la Convention, la Commission n'est compÃ©tente que pour examiner une requÃªt e
_70S_
prÃ©sentÃ©e par une personne qui se prAtend victime d'une violation par l'une des Hautes Parties Contractantes des droits reconnus dans ladite Convention . La Commission note toutefois que le requÃ©rant n'a ni l'autoritÃ© parentale sur ses enfants si la garde de ceux-ci, ces droits ayant Ã©tÃ© attribuÃ©s Ã leur mÃ©re . C'est par consÃ©quent, l'ex-femme du requÃ©rant qui a le droit d'agir pour le compte des enfants dans l'exercice de l'autoritÃ© parentale . Par ailleurs, le requÃ©rant n'a pas dÃ©montrÃ© qu'il est autorisÃ© d'une autre maniÃ©re Ã reprÃ©senter ses enfants en ce qui concerne la prÃ©sente requEte, ni que ceux-ci ont exprimÃ© le moindre voeu de voir leur pÃ©re s'adresser en leur nom Ã la Commission . Pour ces motifs, la Commission conclut que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a agi au nom de ses enfants, il n'a pas qualitÃ©, en vertu de l'article 25 de la Convention, pour exposer les prÃ©sents griefs . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est incompatible ratione personae avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de son article 27, paragraphe 2 . b . Il reste Ã examiner, en premier lieu, s'il existe des indices que le requÃ©rant lui-mPme ait Ã©tÃ© victime d'une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention . Certes, le 1Â° , paragraphe de l'article 8 garantit d'une faÃ§on gÃ©nÃ©rale Ã toute personne le droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale . Toutefois, le deuxiÃ©me paragraphe du mÃ©me article autorise l'ingÃ©rence d'une autoritA publique dans l'exercice de ce droit pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est Â« nÃ©cessaire dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique . . . Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui Â» . Or, la Commission croit comprendre, en premier lieu, que le requArant n'incrimine pas la dÃ©cision attribuant la garde des enfants Ã leur mÃ©re . Il ne semble pas non plus incriminer la pÃ©riode, en tant que telle, durant laquelle il est autorisÃ© A voir ses enfants . La question que la Commission est appelÃ©e 9 examiner, en l'espÃ©ce, se limite par consÃ©quent au fair que le droit de visite accordÃ© au requÃ©rant doit Ãªtre exercÃ© en SuÃ©de . La Commission reconnait que lorsque des parents sont divorcÃ©s et dans d'autres circonstances de rupture de la vie commune des parents, il est IAgitime, voire indispensable, que le droit national prÃ©voie, quant aux relations entre parents et enfants, des rÃ©gles diffÃ©rentes de celles que s'appliquent lorsque la famille est unie (cf . requÃ©te nÂ° 2699/65, X . c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, Annuaire nÂ° 11, page 366, 376 et requÃªte nÂ° 5608/72, X : c/Royaume-Uni, Recueil de dÃ©cisions nÂ° 44, pages 66, 681 . La Commission a, par ailleurs, dÃ©clarÃ© Ã diverses reprises que, dÃ©s lors que l'un des deux parents a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de la garde de son enfant, il peut Ãªtre nÃ©cessaire que les tribunaux nationaux restreignent son droit de visite auprÃ¨s d e
_1p9_
l'enfant, de telles restrictions Ã©tant imposÃ©es dans l'intÃ©rÃ©t mÃªme de l'enfant et, partant, fondÃ©es en vertu du 2^ paragraphe de l'article 8 de la Convention (cf . la requÃ©te susmentionnÃ©e nÂ° 5608/72, /oc . cit .) . En examinant la prÃ©sente affaire, la Commission a pris en considÃ©ration tout particuliÃ©rement l'arrÃ©t rendu par la cour d'appel . Il apparait qu'aprÃ©s avoir attentivement Ã©tudiÃ© les circonstances de l'espÃ©ce, la cour d'appel est parvenue Ã la conclusion qu'il existait un risque que, si le requÃ©rant Ã©tait autorisÃ© Ã voir les enfants au Japon, il ne fasse pas tout le nÃ©cessaire pour les renvoyer en SuÃ©de, ce qui exigerait de sa part des efforts aussi bien sur le plan financier que sur le plan pratique . Selon la cour, l'enquÃªte Ã laquelle il a Ã©tÃ© procÃ©dÃ© n'a pas montrÃ© de faÃ§on certaine que le requÃ©rant serait vraisemblablement disposÃ© Ã coopÃ©rer en la matiÃ©re . II apparaÃ®t donc que la cour d'appel a dÃ»ment mis en balance l'intÃ©rÃ©t du requÃ©rant Ã obtenir que'ses enfants puissent venir au Japon, et l'intÃ©rÃ©t de la mÃ©re des enfants et des enfants eux-mÃªmes Ã obtenir l'assurance que les enfants seront dÃ»ment renvoyÃ©s en SuÃ©de Ã la fin de leur sÃ©jour au Japon . La Commission constate enfin que le requArant n'a apportÃ© aucun Ã©lÃ©ment tendant Ã prouver que les conclusions de la cour d'appel Ã©taient entachÃ©es d'erreur et sa dÃ©cision injustifiÃ©e . A tous ces Ã©gards, la Commission est convaincue que les restrictions apportÃ©es par les tribunaux suÃ©dois Ã l'exercice par le requÃ©rant du droit de visite Ã ses enfants Ã©taient justifiÃ©es, selon les termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, comme Ã©tant nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e et qu'elle doit Ãªtre rejeiÃ©e conformÃ©ment aux dispositions de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention
. - 110 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (plénière)Date de la décision : 04/05/1979Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page