Tokens: In
the
present
case
the
child
's
and
the
applicant
's
interests
were
indeed
considered
by
the
courts
to
coincide
up
to
29
April
1998
,
when
the
access
rights
were
revoked
.
During
more
than
three
years
the
prevailing
view
of
all
authorities
had
been
that
the
child
would
benefit
from
meeting
the
applicant
.
What
is
more
,
the
ongoing
reassessment
of
the
child
's
best
interests
took
place
in
both
civil
and
enforcement
proceedings
pending
simultaneously
before
different
compositions
of
the
same
tribunal
but
essentially
bearing
on
identical
and
in
part
already
examined
evidence
.
The
applicant
was
thus
required
to
have
constant
recourse
to
a
succession
of
time
-
consuming
and
ultimately
ineffectual
remedies
to
enforce
the
access
rights
granted
to
his
daughter
(
see
the
Hokkanen
v.
Finland
judgment
,
p.
23
,
§
61
)
.
Such
a
state
of
affairs
effectively
set
in
motion
a
process
which
proved
to
be
irreversible
:
maintaining
and
enforcing
the
child
's
right
to
meet
with
the
applicant
was
no
longer
deemed
to
be
in
her
best
interests
,
given
the
lack
of
any
physical
interaction
between
the
two
(
see
,
mutatis
mutandis
,
the
Keegan
v.
Ireland
judgment
of
26
May
1994
,
Series
A
no
.
290
,
pp
.
20
-
21
,
§
55
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O