CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2010

.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. 129 April 2010 Mustafa and Armağan Akın v. Turkey - 4694/03 Judgment 6.4.2010 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Custody order effectively preventing siblings spending time together: violation   Facts – Following divorce proceedings, the first applicant was awarded custody of the couple’s son (the second applicant) and his wife custody of their daughter. Under the terms of the court order, the parents were to exchange the children during school holidays and certain religious festivities. The first applicant appealed against that decision requesting that the children be allowed to spend some time together with one of the parents, but his request was refused. Law – Article 8: The decision of the domestic courts interfered with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, in that the second applicant was never able to spend time with his sister and the first applicant was unable to enjoy the company of both his children at the same time. It was therefore necessary to examine whether the respondent State had complied with its positive obligations and whether the authorities had acted with a view to maintaining and developing the applicants’ family ties. The Court was struck by the lack of reasoning justifying the separation of the children, in particular since neither parent had requested such an arrangement. Further, it could not accept the argument that, since they lived in the same neighbourhood, the children were able to see each other, because maintaining family ties between them was too important to be left to the discretion of their parents. The domestic courts had concluded that regular contact between the applicants and their daughter and sister would amount to an unacceptable change of environment for the latter. However, it was unclear how the siblings spending time together on weekends could have had such an impact, especially as they lived in the same area. Finally, the domestic courts had not sought the opinion of the children or based their decision on any psychological or other expert assessment. In conclusion, they had failed to have due regard to the best interests of the family. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 15,000 jointly 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