CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 février 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 105 February 2008 Haase and Others v. Germany - 34499/04 Decision 12.2.2008 [Section V] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Alleged failure of domestic authorities to abide by previously adopted European Court judgment: inadmissible   Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Withdrawal of parental rights and prohibition on access to children: inadmissible   Facts : In their first application to the Court in 2002, the applicants complained about the withdrawal of parental rights over their seven children and interim injunctions that prohibited all contact with them. In its judgment of 8 April 2004 the Court held that that there had been a violation of Article 8, interalia , on account of the applicants’ not having been involved in the decision-making process and the manner in which the measure had been implemented ( Haase v. Germany , no. 1057/02, CEDH 2004-III (extracts); Information Note no. 63). The present case concerned the subsequent decisions given by the German courts in the main proceedings confirming the withdrawal of applicants’ parental rights – except in respect of two children – as well as contact prohibitions and restrictions. Inadmissible : Article 8 – In reviewing whether the domestic courts had based their decisions on custody and access on relevant grounds, the Court observed that the German authorities had carefully examined the applicants’ situation and given their reasons in detailed decisions that were based on extensive evidence including numerous expert reports. Each court had concluded that the first and second applicants’ inability to give the children satisfactory care and education jeopardised the mental, physical and psychological well-being of the children. In the light of those proceedings, the Court found no reason to doubt that the separation of the children from the applicants had been in the children’s best interest. Furthermore, given that the applicants had been involved in the decision-making process to the extent necessary to protect their interests and in the absence of any culpable disregard, discernable bad faith or lack of will imputable to the authorities, the Court concluded that the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 had equally been complied with: manifestly ill-founded . Article 46 – The applicants had alleged that in the decision-making process in the main proceedings, the German courts had failed to comply with the Court’s previous judgement in their case since they had not sufficiently taken into account the Convention as interpreted by the Court therein. Under Article 46 the Contracting Parties undertook to abide by the final judgments of the Court in that they not only pay compensation, but also choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or individual measures to be adopted in order to put an end to the violation found. Consequently, it was not for the Court to verify whether a Contracting Party had complied with the obligations imposed on it by one of the Court’s judgments: incompatible ratione materiae.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes