CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 26 septembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFEBEADFA { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)132 [1] Reigado Ramos contre Portugal Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 73229/01, arrêt du 22 novembre 2005, définitif le 22 février 2006)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus   ;   Rappelant que la violation de la Convention constaté par la Cour dans cette affaire découlait du fait que les autorités avaient manqué depuis 1997 à leur obligation de déployer des efforts appropriés et suffisants pour faire respecter le droit d’accès du requérant à sa fille, née en 1995, et que ce droit n’avait pas encore été mis en œuvre lorsque la Cour a rendu son arrêt (violation de l’article 8)   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -      de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -      de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnés   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt et ayant noté qu’aucune demande de satisfaction équitable n’avait été transmise à la Cour qui, en conséquence, n’as rien accordé à ce titre (voir document DH-DD(2012)52 ) [2] ;   Ayant régulièrement suivi les développements de l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour, notamment la question des mesures individuelles sur la base des informations transmises à cet égard par le gouvernement et le requérant concernant les procédures internes engagées par ce dernier afin d’obtenir une restitutio integrum   ;   Notant que les procédures susmentionnées ont été closes au motif qu’il n’était pas souhaitable de les poursuivre ou d’imposer des visites forcées, contre la volonté de l’enfant, qui avait atteint l’âge de 16 ans, et que le requérant ne souhaitait pas imposer de telles visites ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46§1 ont été adoptées   ;   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action Report regarding the execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Reigado Ramos (Application N o 73229/01)   I - IDENTIFICATION OF THE CASE Date of the judgment: 22 November 2005 N o of the application: 73229/01 Name of the applicant: Jose Manuel Reigado Ramos   Case description:   The case concerns the failure to take adequate and sufficient action to enforce the applicant’s right of access to his child, born in 1995 (violation of Article 8).   In 1998, the applicant brought proceedings seeking the judicial enforcement of an agreement concluded by the applicant and the mother after separation in 1997, regarding their child, according to which the applicant should have a right of access. Over several years, the mother could not be found by the domestic court, even though it undertook several steps to locate her (i.e. by requesting assistance from the police and the social security services). The proceedings were closed in 2003 with the decision by the court to impose a moderate fine on the mother and to award equally moderate damages to the applicant.   Pointing out that the applicant had last seen his daughter on 04/10/1997, when she had been just two years old, the European Court found that the measures taken by the Portuguese authorities with a view to enforcing the agreement, which was still valid, had been automatic and stereotyped and that those authorities had failed to take practical and concrete steps to resolve the issue. The European Court noted in particular that neither the prosecution nor the competent court had tried to bring the parties together or actively involve the social services in finding a solution to the problem, while the simple passing of time was having increasingly serious consequences for the applicant, deprived of any contact with his young child (§§53-54 of the judgment).   II - INDIVIDUAL MEASURES:   a) Payment of the just satisfaction:   No just satisfaction was awarded by the Court, in the absence of a request by the applicant under Art. 41 of the Convention.   b) Other measures:   In February 2007, the Portuguese delegation informed the Committee that, with the assistance of the judicial police, the whereabouts of the mother and the child had been identified.   As agreed before the judge in June 2007, before a new regime on the right to access could be determined, the child and both parents underwent psychological examinations (which began in beginning 2008), followed by preparatory psychological support. The latter started in 2009, through the mediation of the Centre for Children Development (CADIN). In this context, the child clearly showed her refusal to see her father. Although the applicant expressed the wish to meet his daughter and develop his relations with her, he was aware of the need to respect her feelings and to wait for his child to change her current position.   In June, 2010, following the judge’s order, a psychotherapeutic intervention only with the child, aimed at the possible re-established of the father-child contact, began.   Following the psychological and psychotherapeutic supports, on 03/05/2011, an interview by the judge with the two parents in the presence of the child took place. The applicant’s daughter, now aged 16, expressed again her wish not to have any contact with her father and for any future contact to be her choice, as opposed to an obligation enforced by a court. The applicant did not ask anything further from the court.   Considering the overall situation, the judge noted that the mother indeed continued to disrespect the established visit regime (of 1997) and imposed a new fine on her (following the one of 2003- see case description). Furthermore, in light of the best interests of the child and taking into account the principles enshrined in the case law of the European Court, as well as on the basis of the favourable opinion of the public prosecutor, the judge closed the case on the grounds that it was undesirable to continue it or to impose visits by force, against the will of the child, and the applicant did not wish for the latter.   Ill - GENERAL MEASURES:   a) Publication, translation and dissemination:   A copy of the judgment was sent to all national authorities concerned, including to the lnstituto de Reinseryao Social (the Institute of Social Reintegration, which carries out social investigations ordered in the framework of court proceedings on matters related to parental rights). The judgment was also translated and published on the Internet (www.gddc.pt). In addition, the judgment was sent out by the Portuguese Attorney General to all magistrates working with courts that deal with family cases. Finally, both the Supreme Council of Magistrates and the aforementioned Institute of Social Reintegration were requested to adopt appropriate measures in order to prevent new, similar violations in the future.   b) Legislative measures:   Law No. 61/2008 on divorce (entered into force on 01/12/2008) modified the Civil and the Criminal Codes.   Article 1906 of the Civil Code on the exercise of parental authority provides inter alia that the tribunal will decide on the right of access on the basis of the best interest of the child. According to the new Article 1776-A, an agreement on the exercise of parental authority is submitted to the prosecutor at the first-instance tribunal, who shall assess it within 30 days. In case the prosecutor considers that the agreement respects the best interest of the child, it is sent to the General Register Office for homologation. If, on the contrary, the prosecutor considers that the agreement does not sufficiently respect the best interest of the child, the parents have the possibility to change it according to the prosecutor’s assessment or to present a new agreement, which will be again submitted to the prosecutor. In case the parents do not take into account the assessment of the prosecutor, the latter will send the agreement to the court for a decision by a judge.   Articles 249 (Abduction of minors) and 250 (Maintenance obligation) of the Criminal Code have also been amended. Article 249 provides that child abduction or reiterated and unjustified refusal to abide by agreements regulating the exercise of parental authority is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or by a up to 240 day-fine. As regards failure to comply with the agreement, the penalty is softened when the parent’s behaviour is motivated by the wish to respect the child’s will, when the child is over 12 years of age.   c) Other measures:   The Portuguese authorities indicated that the Institute for Social Security has been vested with competences concerning parental authority. The Institute is carrying out activities addressed to all professionals co­ operating with courts in civil tutelary matters aimed at improving their intervention in the field. Moreover, in 2008, 24 training activities on Mediation and conflict management and the Evaluation of parental competences took place. In 2009, the Institute for Social Security carried out 13 training activities on the new law 61/2008. Furthermore, another 13 training activities concerning "Interview Techniques in cases of parental conflict", as well as two workshops on "positive parental relations" took place.     IV - CONCLUSION   The Portuguese Authorities consider that no other individual measure is required in these cases, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Portugal has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 26 septembre 2012 lors de la 1150e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Uniquement en anglais