CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 juin 1993

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. June 1993 Hoffmann v. Austria - 12875/87 Judgment 23.6.1993 Article 14 Discrimination Parental rights after divorce refused the mother in view of her membership of the Jehovah's Witnesses: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 8 TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION Supreme Court's decision compelling the applicant to give up the children to their father constitutes an interference with her right to respect for her family life. In view of the nature of the allegations made, it is appropriate to examine the case under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article   14. The European Court does not deny that, depending on the circumstances of the case, the factors relied on by the Supreme Court (rejection of public holidays, opposition to blood transfusions, position as a social minority) may in themselves be capable of tipping the scales in favour of one parent rather than the other - however, the Supreme Court also introduced a new element, namely the Federal Act on the Religious Education of Children, which it clearly considered decisive - the European Court therefore accepts that there was a difference in treatment on the ground of religion. The aim pursued was a legitimate one, namely the protection of the health and rights of the children. In so far as the Supreme Court did not rely solely on the Federal Act on the Religious Education of Children, it weighed the facts differently from the courts below, whose reasoning was moreover supported by psychological expert opinion - notwithstanding any possible arguments to the contrary, a distinction based essentially on a difference in religion alone is not acceptable - therefore no reasonable relationship of proportionality existed between the means employed and the aim pursued. Conclusion : violation of Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article   14 (five votes to four); not necessary to examine the case under Article   8 taken alone (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION No separate issue arises under Article   9, either taken alone or read in conjunction with Article 14. Conclusion : no need to consider the complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Complaint not pursued before the Court. Conclusion : no need to examine it of the Court's own motion (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Specified sum awarded in respect of costs and expenses (eight votes to one).   © 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