CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 décembre 2006

.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. 92 December 2006 Hunt v. Ukraine - 31111/04 Judgment 7.12.2006 [Section V] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Applicant banned from entering country in which proceedings leading to deprivation of his parental rights ended without his having been heard: violation   Facts : The applicant, an American national, got married and resided in Ukraine with his son before he left the country and got divorced (when his child was three years old). The applicant was prohibited from re‑entering Ukraine after his ex-wife filed a complaint against him. She then began proceedings to deprive him of his parental rights with respect to their son. Due to the prohibition on re-entry the applicant was unable to take part in the proceedings and was eventually deprived of his parental rights. His representative appealed unsuccessfully. Law : The proceedings concerning parental rights had to be based on an assessment of the applicant's personal character and his behaviour. Such an assessment could not be undertaken without having heard the applicant in person or at least, in the circumstances of the present case, having sought to obtain first‑hand information from the applicant as to the events and his relations with his son and ex-wife, via international legal assistance instruments. This was not done in the instant case. Further, the domestic courts disregarded the fact that the applicant had attempted to see his son, they failed to call a witness proposed by the applicant, and the respective higher courts did not answer the applicant's complaints about these failures. Moreover, the fact that the applicant contested the request for deprivation of his parental rights could also be seen as evidence of his interest in his son. In sum, the applicant was not involved in the decision-making process to an extent necessary to protect his interests. Conclusion : violation (unanimously) and no need to examine the facts also under Article   6(1) (fair hearing). Article   41 – EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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