Instantie

Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens

Samenvatting

In het kader van een echtscheiding in 1989 wordt het ouderlijk gezag over de
twee dochters van partijen aan vader toegekend en krijgt moeder een
omgangsregeling. Vader vertrekt met de kinderen in 1990 van Frankrijk naar de
Verenigde Staten zonder moeder hiervan in kennis te stellen. Moeder klaagt
hierover bij de Franse rechtbank. De rechtbank belast vervolgens beide ouders
met het ouderlijk gezag en bepaalt dat de kinderen bij moeder zullen wonen en
dat vader een bezoekrecht krijgt. Vader geeft echter geen uitvoering aan de
uitspraak en brengt de kinderen niet terug; hij verlaat uiteindelijk in maart
1994 de Verenigde Staten en gaat met de kinderen naar zijn vaderland
Roemenië. Art. 8 EVRM schept – naast het beschermen van de burger tegen
willekeurige inbreuken door de overheid – ook een positieve verplichting voor
de overheid om een daadwerkelijk ‘respect’ voor het gezinsleven te
verzekeren. Op de Roemeense autoriteiten rust de verplichting om de gepaste
maatregelen te nemen om de onmiddellijke terugkeer van de kinderen te
bewerkstelligen (art. 7 van de Haagse Conventie, waarbij Roemenië partij is).
In het licht van de Haagse Conventie houdt dit in dat spoed is geboden bij de
tenuitvoerlegging; immers, door het verloop van de tijd kan er een
onherstelbare schade optreden in de relatie tussen de kinderen en de ouder
die de kinderen niet bij zich heeft.
Het Hof beslist in de onderhavige zaak dat Roemenië onvoldoende maatregelen
heeft genomen en veroordeelt Roemenië tot het betalen van een immateriële
schadevergoeding en de kosten van de procedure.

Volledige tekst

Having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and
in particular Article 4, which requires States Parties to undertake all
appropriate measures for the implementation of the rights recognised in the
said Convention, the rights and best interests of children should be
promoted. To that end, children should have the opportunity to exercise their
rights, in particular in family proceedings affecting them. Due weight should
also be given to children’s views (see the European Convention on the
Exercise of Children’s Rights, ETS, no. 160). Consequently, where parents’
interests conflict, the views and preferences of children must be properly
heard and taken into account in proceedings and in the making of decisions
concerning them.

It is clear from the case file that the children have been living for a long
time with their father. From the standpoint of the best interests of the
child, it is not of decisive importance under what circumstances that came
about or what role in that situation was played by each of their parents or
by the public authorities. It is also clear that the children in the instant
case expressly preferred to live with their father; and their preference must
have been taken into account. I much regret that this circumstance was
disregarded both in the domestic and in the foreign judicial proceedings, and
enforcing an old judicial decision against the will of those who were the
subjects of that decision comes close to doing violence.

Secondly, I am of the opinion that the procedural miscarriages and delays
that occurred come within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention rather
than of Article 8.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DICULESCU-SOVA

(Translation)

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I disagree with the way in
which the Court applied Article 41 of the Convention.

The applicant sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the
fact that it had been impossible for her to exercise her parental rights for
nine years.

Yet it is a fact which cannot be disputed by the applicant that in 1989 she
renounced her parental rights (see paragraph 10 of the judgment) for
financial and tax reasons.

It is also a fact which she cannot dispute that from 1989 to the end of 1994
there was no family life between her and her daughters, for lack of any
relations between them.

As the teenagers’ intolerance and rejection of their mother have only
increased, it has become very difficult for the Romanian authorities to
comply with the letter of Article 8 of the Convention.

The Court considered that the positive obligations provided for in that
Article in the matter of reuniting a parent with his or her children must be
interpreted in the light of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The respondent State, however, has complied with the Hague Convention and has
consequently respected the children’s interests, thereby ensuring that they
are not traumatised.

That being so, and in view, firstly, of the fact that the conflict and the
alleged non-pecuniary damage originated in the stance taken up by the mother
in 1989, secondly, of the fact that for five years the girls were outside the
territory and jurisdiction of the respondent State although the sum sought
under the head of non-pecuniary damage also covered that period, and,
thirdly, of the respondent State’s position in this conflict at this stage, I
consider that the finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention would
have represented sufficient satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage in this
case.

As regards the expenses, I judge that the sum of FRF 40,000 awarded by the
Court for the fees claimed by the French lawyer who represented the applicant
at Strasbourg is excessive in relation to the work done (memorial and oral
address), especially as no fee note in which the sum was broken down was
produced to the Court.

Rechters

Mrs. Mrs E. Palm, Casadevall, Gaukur Jörundsson, Türmen, Thomassen, Maruste,Diculescu-Sova