CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 24 février 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Resolution ResDH(2004)5 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 11 October 2001 (final on 11 January 2002) in the case of Hoffmann against Germany   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 February 2004 at the 871st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hoffmann case delivered on 11   October 2001 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 34045/96) against Germany, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 July 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Friedhelm   Hoffmann, a German national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph   2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that the German court decision dismissing the applicant’s request for access to his child, born out of wedlock, had amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his family life, that he had been victim of discriminatory treatment in this respect and that there had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing;   Whereas in its judgment of 11 October 2001 the Court:   -   held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;   -   held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8;   - held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;   -   held by five votes to two that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 25 000 German marks in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 2 500 German marks in respect of costs and expenses, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable and that simple interest at an annual rate of 8,62% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed unanimously the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 11 October 2001, having regard to Germany’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, notably by amendments of the relevant legislative provisions on custody and access which are found in the German Civil Code and by the amended Law on Family Matters of 16 December 1997 which came into force on 1 July 1998 (see ResDH(2001)155 in Elsholz case against Germany) and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been published in Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht, Volume 6, 2002, p. 381-86 and sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 13 February 2002, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 11 October 2001,   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Germany, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.