CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 avril 2005

.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. 75 May 2005 M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 35242/04 Decision 26.4.2005 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Deficiencies in judicial process resulting in father’s contact with his daughter being greatly minimised and negatively affected: inadmissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Court delays and failure to enforce contact orders in custody proceedings: inadmissible   The applicant, a non-resident father, separated from his wife, a United Kingdom national. Thereafter, he was denied contact with his daughter during a five year period despite having been found by relevant experts to be a competent and caring father. He obtained numerous orders of the courts concerning contact, but given the mother’s repeated and wilful failure to comply with court orders and the resulting alienation of his daughter, the court proceedings terminated with the applicant withdrawing his applications for residence and direct contact and accepting, by consent, a framework of indirect contact with his daughter. The High Court judge recognised that the applicant was entitled to feel let down by the system and that there were lessons to be learned from the case. In his full judgment he dealt with the wider aspects of the case in the public interest. He inter alia emphasised how the system more frequently failed non-resident fathers in custody cases, criticised the appalling delays in the court system and lack of judicial continuity, with an astonishing number of different judges involved, and the failure of the courts to enforce contact orders or deal effectively with groundless allegations by the mother. Referring to the Strasbourg jurisprudence, the judge considered that domestic approaches did not meet the standards of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, in particular how a five year timescale as in the case could be compatible with the Convention. Finally, the judge issued a public, although anonymous, apology for the system’s failure to protect the applicant’s rights. The applicant complains of the lack of fairness of the judicial process, a breach of his right to his family life and that he had been discriminated against as a father without residence. Inadmissible under Articles 6, 8 and 14: The High Court judge had in substance acknowledged that the applicant’s Convention rights had been infringed, setting out an analysis of the defects in the system and a list of recommendations for the future. As regards redress, the applicant had not claimed for damages in the domestic courts nor had he asked for any monetary compensation before the Court. In any event, it was open for the applicant to seek damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. Even if the Court were to continue the examination of the case it would be unable to improve on the detailed and expert examination of the domestic procedure. Accordingly, notwithstanding the tragic events in this case and the Court’s considerable sympathy for the applicant, he could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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