Source: http://vaeterfuerkinder.de/haase.htm
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 12:36:41
Document Index: 225621640

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 89', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 98', 'EGMR']

Kinder e.V.:
Die zusammenfassende Pressemitteilung und das Urteil selbst sind für heute 14h30 als von den Webseiten des Gerichtshofes, http://www.echr.coe.int, abrufbar angekündigt. Hier einige Auszüge daraus: ....
2. The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr P. Koeppel, a lawyer practising in München.[Note1] [Note2] The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Stoltenberg, Ministerialdirigent.[Note3] 3. The applicants alleged, that
the suspension of their parental responsibility for their four children and the three children of Mrs Haase’s first marriage and the prohibition of access to all the children amounted to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention They also complained about the unfairness of the court proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
98. In the Court's
opinion, the findings of the Federal Constitutional Court show that the
provisional withdrawal of their parental rights and the removal of the children
were not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that the applicants
were not involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to
provide them with the requisite protection of their interests.
Court observes moreover that, before public authorities have recourse to
emergency measures in such delicate issues as care orders, the imminent danger
should be actually established. It is true that in obvious cases of danger no
involvement of the parents is called for. However, if it is still possible to
hear the parents of the children and to discuss with them the necessity of the
measure, there should be no room for an emergency action, in particular when,
like in the present case, the danger had already existed for a long period.
There was therefore no urgency as to justify the District Court's interim
100. The Court has
also given consideration to the method used in implementing the District Court's
decision of 17 December 2001. Taking suddenly six children from their respective
schools, kindergarten and from home and placing them in unidentified foster
homes, and forbidding all contact with the applicants, went beyond the
exigencies of the situation and cannot be accepted as a proportionate.
101. In particular,
the removal of the new-born baby from the hospital was an
extremely harsh measure. It was a step which was traumatic for the mother and
placed her own physical and mental health under a strain, and it deprived the
new-born baby of close contact with its natural mother and, as pointed out by
the applicants, of the advantages of breast-feeding. The removal also deprived
the father of being close to his daughter after the birth. It is not for the
Court to take the place of the German authorities and to speculate as to the
best child care measures in the particular case. The Court is aware of the
problems facing the authorities in situations where emergency steps must be
taken. If no action is taken, there exists a real risk that harm will occur to
the child and that the authorities will be held to account for their failure to
intervene. At the same time, if protective steps are taken, the authorities tend
to be blamed for unacceptable interference with the right to respect for family
life. However, when such a drastic measure for the mother, depriving her totally
of her new-born child immediately after birth, was contemplated, it was
incumbent on the competent national authorities to examine whether some less
intrusive interference into family life, at such a critical point in the lives
of the parents and child, was not possible.
102. As stated
above (see paragraph 89), there must be extraordinarily compelling reasons
before a baby can be physically removed from the care of its mother, against her
will, immediately after birth as a consequence of a procedure in which neither
she nor her husband has been involved.
103. The Court is
not satisfied that such reasons have been shown to exist in relation to the
daughter born in hospital. Although the contested decision of the
Münster District Court of 17 December 2001 has been set aside by the
Federal Constitutional Court, it remains that it formed the basis of the
continuing separation of the applicants and the children since 18 December
2001. Experience shows that when children remain in the care of youth
authorities for a protracted period, a process is set in motion of driving them
towards an irreversible separation from their family. When a considerable period
of time has passed since the children were first placed in care, the children's
interest in not undergoing further de facto changes to their family
situation may prevail over the parents' interest in seeing the family reunited.
The possibilities of reunification will be progressively diminished and
eventually destroyed if the biological parents and the children are not allowed
to meet each other at all. Time takes on therefore a particular significance as
there is always a danger that any procedural delay will result in the de
facto determination of the issue before the court (H. v. the United
Kindom, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120, pp. 63-64, §§ 89-90).
Moreover, the Draconian step of removing the applicants' daughter shortly after
her birth from her mother could in the Court's opinion only lead to the
child's alienation from her parents and siblings and entail the danger that the
family relations between the parents and the young child are effectively
curtailed. The measures taken, because of their immediate impact and their
consequences, are therefore difficult to redress.
104. In the light
of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the decision of the Münster District
Court of 17 December 2001, the unjustified failure to allow the applicants to
participate in the decision-making process leading to that decision, the methods
used in implementing that decision, in particular the Draconian step of removing
the new born daughter from her mother shortly after birth, and the particular
quality of irreversibility of these measures were not supported by relevant and
sufficient reasons and cannot be regarded as having been “necessary” in a
105. Consequently,
there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY[Note1] 1. Holds that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case in respect of the decisions of the Münster District Court of 18 December 2001; 2. Holds that the applicants may claim to be “victims” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention; 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 4. Holds that there is no separate issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
5. Holds [Note2] (a) [Note3] that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention[Note4] , the following amounts:
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; 6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Wir haben eine Teilübersetzung (§§ 98 -104) des Urteils Haase gegen Deutschland angefertigt. (pdf
Datei, 83 kB). Über diesen Fall ist schon wiederholt in Presse und Fernsehen berichtet worden, seit sich Familie Haase an das Jugendamt um Hilfe wandte und ihr dann prompt alle 7 Kinder mit unbekannten Aufenthalt weg genommen wurden, einschließlich des jüngsten gerade 7 Tage alten Kindes im Wochenbett, oder wie es im Schreiben des Oberbürgermeisters von Münster vom 19.12. 2001 hieß:. Sehr geehrte Frau H.,
Leider weiterhin keine wesentlichen Konsequenzen aus der vernichtenden Kritik von Bundesverfassungsgericht und des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte an den Entscheidungen der lokal zuständigen Gerichte und vor allem an der Arbeit des Jugendamtes. Die Eltern haben erst seit März 2004 Umgang, aber nur mit lediglich 2 der 7 eine Woche vor
Weihnachten 2001 ,,in Obhut" genommenen Kinder, und ohne eine von ihnen dazu angestrebte Regelung. Die jüngsten Kinder sind in kinderlosen Pflegefamilien. Wirklich bemerkenswert jedoch die Aussagen der Leiterin des Jugendamtes, lt. STERN:
,,Die Abwägung zwischen Elternrecht und Kindeswohl wird beim
[pdf Datei] und im deutschen Kinder-und Jugendhilfegesetz unterschiedlich bewertet." Und dazu noch ein weiteres, wahrlich erschreckendes Armutszeugnis für die Qualität solcher Abwägungen des Jugendamtes und zugleich für den Staat der dieser Institution dazu praktisch unkontrollierte Macht verleiht: Frau Haase hat Anfang 2004 eine weitere Tochter geboren. Auf die Frage einer WDR-Journalistin, warum man das Baby bei Haases lasse, wenn es doch dort so gefährlich sei", habe die Jugendamtsleiterin geantwortet: ,,Weil der Mediendruck so hoch ist." Immerhin wenigstens eine offene, ehrliche Antwort.
Fliege -Die Talkshow, ARD, Mo. 5.7.2004, 16h, Länge: 60 Minuten:
Andreas Meunier (45) und seine Frau Barbara (41) erlebten mit dem Jugendamt und dem Amtsgericht Saarlouis die Hölle. Die achtjährige Tochter Nina war ihnen entzogen und zu einer Pflegefamilie gesteckt worden. Eine Nachbarin hatte behauptete, von Nina erfahren zu haben, sie werde vom Vater sexuell missbraucht. - Josef Haase und seine Frau Cornelia (beide 35) aus Münster mussten vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht und dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Straßburg um ihre sieben Kinder kämpfen: Das Jugendamt Münster hatte ihnen die Sprösslinge, darunter das sieben Tage alten Baby Laura-Michelle, in einer Nacht- und Nebel-Aktion weggenommen. ..........
16.5.2004 ZDF Mona Lisa: Im Zweifel gegen die leiblichen Eltern.
Wer kontrolliert das Jugendamt? In den Zuständigkeitsbereichen der Jugendämter Münster und Osnabrück gibt es auffallend viele Fälle, in denen Kinder weggenommen werden und die Eltern sie nicht zurückbekommen. Das klingt nach System. Doch was steckt dahinter? ML Mona Lisa hat nachgefragt.
15.4.2004: Zu der
MONA LISA Sendung vom 28.3. 2004 über den Fall "Müller" (Meunier) ist auf den Webseiten des ZDF ein Bericht ,,Gegen Jugendamt und Richter. Eltern kämpfen um ihr Kind" (Teil 1 und Teil 2) abrufbar. Enthalten sind auch links zu früheren Berichten (vor der EGMR Entscheidung) über den Fall Haase ,,Familie Haase kämpft um ihre Kinder. Das Jugendamt nahm ihnen sieben Kinder weg"
und unter "Neu-Beelterung.
Zu dumm zum Erziehen?"
über den Fall Kutzner, in dem der Straßburger Gerichtshof ebenfalls eine Menschenrechtsverletzung feststellte.
Zur Homepage von Väter für Kinder