2. Entschädigungsfall

Gerichtshof stärkt Väter

Europäischer Rüffel an deutsche Gerichte: Sie machten es sich mit Umgangsrecht nichtehelicher Väter zu einfach

FREIBURG taz  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat die Position von nichtehelichen Vätern gestärkt. In zwei Fällen stellte der EGMR fest, dass es sich deutsche Gerichte zu einfach gemacht hatten, als sie den Vätern den Umgang mit ihren Kindern verweigerten. Der deutsche Staat muss den beiden Vätern je rund 50.000 Mark Schadensersatz zahlen.

Konkret ging es um Väter, die mit der Mutter in nichtehelicher Gemeinschaft zusammengelebt hatten. Nach der Geburt des Kindes ging die Beziehung zu Bruch und die Mütter verweigerten den Vätern den weiteren Umgang mit den Kindern. Auch vor den deutschen Zivilgerichten konnten die Väter ihr Umgangsrecht nicht durchsetzen, da dem das "Wohl des Kindes" entgegenstehe. Die Kinder hatten zuvor jeweils erklärt, dass sie ihren leiblichen Vater nicht sehen wollten.

Der EGMR hat nun deutlich gemacht, dass es hier nicht nur um eine Besuchsregelung gehe, sondern das Verhältnis von Vater und Kind überhaupt auf dem Spiel stehe. Erforderlich sei deshalb zum einen, dass das Kind vom Gericht selbst angehört werde und seine Aussage nicht nur über andere Personen ins Verfahren eingebracht werde. Außerdem müssten auch "scheinbar feststehende" Erklärungen des Kindes durch einen psychologischen Experten überprüft werden, um die "wahren Wünsche" des Kindes herauszufinden. CHRISTIAN RATH

11.10.2001
http://www.taz.de/tpl/2001/10/12.nf/text.Tname,a0090.list,TAZ_txt.idx,5

Die Rechte unehelicher Väter gestärkt
VON CHRISTIAN RATH

Der Europäische Menschenrechts-Gerichtshof hilft Vätern, die ihre Kinder nicht mehr sehen durften.

Straßburg - Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat die Position von nicht-ehelichen Vätern gestärkt.

Konkret ging es um Väter, die mit der Mutter in nicht-ehelicher Gemeinschaft zusammenlebten. Nach der Geburt eines Kindes ging die Beziehung jeweils zu Bruch und die Mütter verweigerten den Vätern den weiteren Umgang mit den Kindern. Auch vor den deutschen Zivilgerichten konnten die Väter ihr Umgangsrecht nicht durchsetzen.

Der EGMR hat nun deutlich gemacht, dass es hier nicht nur um eine Besuchsregelung gehe, sondern das Verhältnis von Vater und Kind überhaupt auf dem Spiel stehe. Erforderlich sei deshalb zum einen, dass das Kind vom Gericht angehört werde und seine Aussage nicht nur über andere Personen ins Verfahren eingebracht wird.

Außerdem müssten auch „scheinbar feststehende“ Erklärungen des Kindes durch einen psychologischen Experten überprüft werden, um die „wahren Wünsche“ des Kindes herauszufinden. Insbesondere müsse das Kind „vollständig“ über seine Beziehung zu dem antragstellenden Vater aufgeklärt werden. Der deutsche Staat muss den beiden Vätern jeweils rund 50 000 Mark Schadensersatz bezahlen.

11.10.2001
www.ksta.de/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ksta/page&atype=ksArtikel&aid=1002712256279&openMenu=992283260424&calledPageId=1&listid=994945489953

Straßburger Gericht besteht auf Besuchsrecht unverheirateter Väter

Straßburg, 11. Oktober (AFP) - Unverheirateten Vätern darf nach einem Urteil des Europäischen Menschenrechtsgerichtshofs nicht grundsätzlich das Besuchsrecht bei ihren Kindern verweigert werden. Das Straßburger Gericht verurteilte Deutschland am Donnerstag in drei Fällen zu Geldstrafen, weil deutsche Gerichte das Besuchsrecht von unverheirateten Männern gegenüber verheirateten geringer eingestuft hatten. Eine derartige Schlechterbehandlung nicht verheirateter Väter verstoße gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot des Artikels 14 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, urteilten die Richter. Deutschland muss den Klägern insgesamt 143.000 Mark als Entschädigung und für ihre Auslagen zahlen. Das Straßburger Urteil ist für Deutschland als Mitgliedsstaat des Europarats und Unterzeichner der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention bindend. (AFP)
 

11.10.2001
http://www.hurra.de/news/produits/ticker/011011165123.h9wnn9vu.shtml

722
11.10.2001

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgments in the cases of: Sahin v. Germany (application no. 30943/96),  Sommerfeld v. Germany (no. 31871/96) and  Hoffmann v. Germany (no. 34045/96), none of which is final [fn]. (The judgments are available only in English.)

The European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that there had been:

• a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in Sahin v. Germany and  Sommerfeld v. Germany;
• no violation of Article 8 in Hoffmann v. Germany;
• a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 in all three cases;
• a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) in Sommerfeld v. Germany and Hoffmann v. Germany.

1.  Principal facts

The applicants, Asim Sahin, Manfred Sommerfeld, and Friedhelm Hoffmann are all German nationals; Mr Sahin was a Turkish national at the time of the events complained of but subsequently obtained German nationality. They were born respectively in 1950, 1953 and 1954. All three had children born out of wedlock concerning whom they were refused access by the German courts.

2.  Procedure and composition of the Court

The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 June 1993, 7 June 1995 and 15 July 1996 respectively and transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. On 12 December 2000 the first two cases were declared partly admissible and Hoffmann v. Germany was declared admissible.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), President,
Georg Ress (German),
Lucius Caflisch (Swiss),
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese),
Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian),
Nina Vaji? (Croatian),
Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), judges,

and also Vincent Berger, Section Registrar.

3.  Summary of the judgment

Complaints

The applicants alleged that the German courts’ decisions to dismiss their requests for access to their children breached Article 8. They also complained of discrimination, relying on Article 14 taken together with Article 8. In Sommerfeld v. Germany and Hoffmann v. Germany the applicants further claimed, relying on Article 6, that they were denied a fair hearing.

Decision of the Court

Article 8

In Sahin v. Germany, the competent national courts, when refusing the applicant’s request for a visiting arrangement, relied on the statements made by the applicant and the child’s mother, witnesses and the comments of the Wiesbaden Youth Office and on expert advice, took into account the strained relations between the parents and found that contacts were not in the child’s interest.

The Court did not doubt that these reasons were relevant. However, in the Court’s opinion, the German courts’ failure to hear the child revealed that the applicant was not sufficiently involved in the access proceedings. It was essential that the competent courts gave careful consideration to what lay in the best interests of the child after having had direct contact with the child. The Regional Court should not have been satisfied with the expert’s vague statements about the risks inherent in questioning the child without even contemplating the possibility of taking special arrangements in view of the child’s young age.

In this context, the Court attached importance to the fact that the expert indicated that she had not asked the child about her father. Correct and complete information on the child’s relationship with the applicant as the parent seeking access to the child was an indispensable prerequisite for establishing a child’s true wishes and thereby striking a fair balance between the interests at stake.

In Sommerfeld v. Germany  the Court observed that the District Court, when refusing the applicant’s request for a visiting arrangement, relied on the statements made by the child, questioned by the District Court in 1994 at the age of thirteen and, in a preceding set of access proceedings, at the age of ten. It had also heard the applicant and the child’s mother. Also considering comments filed by the local Youth Office and material obtained in the first set of access proceedings, the District Court found that contact was not in the child’s interest. The Regional Court endorsed the District Court’s findings.

The Court did not doubt that these reasons were relevant. However, it noted that District Court heard the child and the parents and had regard to material obtained in a first set of access proceedings, including comments filed by a psychologist of the local health services of April 1992. The Court considered that, given the psychologist’s rather superficial submissions in the first set of proceedings, the lapse of time and bearing in mind what was at stake in the proceedings, namely the relations between a father and his child, the District Court should not have been satisfied with only hearing the child as to her wishes on the matter without having at its disposal psychological expert evidence in order to evaluate the child’s seemingly firm wishes. Correct and complete information on the child’s relationship with the applicant as the parent seeking access to the child was an indispensable prerequisite for establishing a child’s true wishes and thereby striking a fair balance between the interests at stake. The Court further recalled that the Regional Court, which had full power to review all issues relating to the request for access, endorsed the District Court findings on the basis of the file. In the Court’s opinion, the German courts’ failure to order a psychological report on the possibilities of establishing contacts between the child and the applicant revealed that the applicant was not sufficiently involved in the decision-making process.

In Hoffmann v. Germany the Court noted that the competent national courts, when setting aside the applicant’s right of access, relied on the statements made by the applicant and the child’s mother, the comments of the Mülheim Youth Office and the local Diakonisches Werk, and in particular on the statements made by the child, questioned by the District Court at the age of about seven, as well as on expert advice. The courts took into account the strained relations between the parents and found that any further contact would adversely affect the child.

The Court did not doubt that these reasons were relevant. However, the Court recalled that the District Court had regard to several reports on the question of contacts between the applicant and his child J., one of them being based on the experience of meetings between the applicant and J. in a child guidance centre. The applicant, represented by counsel, had the opportunity to comment on those reports. In the Court’s opinion, the applicant was thereby sufficiently involved in the decision-making process. The German courts arrived at the contested decision after weighing up the various competing interests in issue. Having regard to all circumstances, the Court found that the German courts were entitled to consider the refusal of access to be necessary and that their reasons for so concluding were "sufficient".

Article 14

In all three cases, the Court noted that Germany’s laws on custody and access were amended by the Law on Family Matters of 16 December 1997 (which came into effect on I July 1998) which entitles both the father and mother of a minor child born out of wedlock to have access to their child. These amendments demonstrated that the aims of the German laws applicable at the time of the events in the three cases in question (which occurred prior to 1998) - namely to protect the interests of children and their parents - could have been achieved without making a distinction on the grounds of whether the child concerned was born in or out of wedlock.

Article 6

In Sommerfeld v. Germany andHoffmann v. Germany the Court noted that in proceedings concerning a natural father’s access to his child born out of wedlock, there was no general right of a further appeal against a first appeal decision. The Court concluded that this limitation on the applicant’s right of access to a court was not compatible with Article 6.

Judge Pellonpää expressed a dissenting opinion in each case and Judge Vaji? expressed a joint dissenting opinion in Sahin v. Germany and a separate partially dissenting opinion in Sommerfeld v. Germany and Hoffmann v. Germany, which are annexed to the judgments.

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.

[fn] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/Oct/Sahin+Sommerfeld+Hoffmannjud.htm
 

1. Entschädigungsfall

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Elsholz v. Germany Teil1 / Part1
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Elsholz v. Germany Teil2 / Part2
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Elsholz v. Germany Teil3 / Part3
Download rtf-file

Rechte der Väter gestärkt
Achtung des Familienlebens auch bei Ausweisungen zu beachten

gel. FRANKFURT, 25. Juli. Unverheiratete oder geschiedene Väter, die Kontakt zu ihren Kindern halten wollen, dabei jedoch am Widerstand der nationalen Behörden und Gerichte scheitern, erhalten Unterstützung durch den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Straßburg. Die Straßburger Richter verkündeten vor kurzem zwei Urteile, in denen sie feststellten, die Niederlande und Deutschland hätten das Recht zweier Väter auf Achtung des Familienlebens verletzt und damit gegen die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention verstoßen.

Dem deutschen Vater, der nach der Trennung von der Mutter seines Sohnes vergeblich versucht hatte, eine Erlaubnis zum persönlichen Kontakt mit dem Kind zu bekommen, sprach der Straßburger Gerichtshof eine Entschädigung in Höhe von 35 000 Mark für den immateriellen Schaden zu, den er durch die Missachtung seiner Rechte erlitten habe (Urteil im Fall Elsholz vom 13. Juli). In dem niederländischen Fall wurde dem Kläger, einem türkischen Staatsangehörigen, dem die niederländischen Behörden ein Besuchsrecht verweigert hatten und der zudem aus den Niederlanden ausgewiesen worden war, eine Entschädigung für immaterielle Beeinträchtigungen in Höhe von 22 000 niederländischen Gulden zugesprochen (Urteil im Fall Ciliz vom 11. Juli).

Der deutsche Kläger, ein 53 Jahre alter Mann aus Hamburg, hatte vergeblich versucht, ein Recht auf persönlichen Umgang mit seinem Sohn zu erhalten. Dies wurde ihm von den Gerichten Anfang der neunziger Jahre mit dem Hinweis verwehrt, die Beziehung zwischen dem Kläger und der Mutter des Kindes sei so gespannt, dass es nicht dem Wohl des Kindes diene, wenn dem Vater ein Besuchsrecht zugesprochen werde. Nach den damals geltenden Vorschriften zur elterlichen Sorge für nicht eheliche Kinder hatten die Väter nur eine sehr schwache Stellung. Mit der Reform des Kindschaftsrechts 1997 wurden ihre Rechte gestärkt. Der ablehnenden Entscheidung des Amtsgerichts Mettmann waren zwei ausführliche Gespräche mit dem Kind vorausgegangen; ein psychologisches Gutachten wurde nicht eingeholt. Das Landgericht Wuppertal bestätigte 1993 die Entscheidung des Amtsgerichts; die Eltern wurden dazu nicht angehört. Die Beschwerde des Vaters beim Bundesverfassungsgericht, dass sein Recht auf Achttung des Familienlebens verletzt sei, blieb ohne Erfolg.

Strengere Maßstäbe als die deutschen Verfassungsrichter legten nunmehr die Richter am Straßburger Gerichtshof an. Sie rügten in ihrem Urteil, dass kein psychologisches Gutachten zu der Frage eingeholt worden sei, ob ein Besuchsrecht des Vaters dem Wohl des Kindes diene. Außerdem beanstandet der Straßburger Gerichtshof, dass das Landgericht Wuppertal die Eltern nicht angehört habe. Aufgrund dieser Versäumnisse sei das Recht des Vaters auf Achtung seines Familienlebens sowie sein Recht auf ein faires Verfahren verletzt worden.

Im Fall des türkischen Klägers gegen die Niederlande wird, wie schon in früheren Entscheidungen aus Straßburg, deutlich, dass der Gerichtshof dem Recht auf Familienleben auch im Zusammenhang mit der Ausweisung von Ausländern große Bedeutung zumisst. Der türkische Vater, der vor dem Gerichtshof geklagt hatte, war 1995 aus den Niederlanden ausgewiesen worden, weil er keine Arbeit mehr hatte. Nach Meinung der niederländischen Behörden und Gerichte war der Kontakt zwischen Vater und Sohn nicht so eng, als dass er einer Ausweisung entgegengestanden hätte. Die Pflicht zum Schutz des Familienlebens gehe nicht so weit, dass ein Staat gehalten wäre, einen Ausländer so lange im Land zu behalten, bis sich Familienbande entwickelt hätten, argumentierte die niederländische Regierung.

Parallel zu den Gerichtsverfahren, die der Ausweisung des Vaters galten, liefen vor niederländischen Gerichten auch noch Verfahren, in denen der Vater ein Recht auf regelmäßigen Kontakt mit seinem Sohn beanspruchte. Dies war ihm bislang unter anderem mit dem Hinweis verweigert worden, er habe sich erst, als seine Ausweisung drohte, um regelmäßigen Kontakt mit seinem Sohn bemüht. Eine endgültige Entscheidung darüber, ob dem Vater ein Besuchsrecht zusteht, ist noch nicht getroffen.

Der Gerichtshof rügte, die niederländischen Gerichte hätten es versäumt, die Verfahren zum Besuchsrecht und zur Ausweisung zu koordinieren. Mit der Ausweisung sei die Entscheidung über das Besuchsrecht vorweggenommen worden. Vor allem sei dem Kläger dadurch die Möglichkeit genommen worden, sich an den weiteren Verfahren zum Besuchsrecht zu beteiligen, obwohl dies offensichtlich erforderlich gewesen wäre. Wegen dieser Versäumnisse sei der Kläger in seinem Recht auf Achtung seines Familienlebens verletzt worden.

FAZ 26.07.2000, Seite 15

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Elsholz v.Germany. The Court Rights held by thirteen votes to four that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for family life), unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (freedom from discrimination in respect of the right to respect for family life) and by thirteen votes to four that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 35,000 German marks (DEM) for non-pecuniary damage and DEM 12,584.26 for legal costs and expenses.

1. Principal facts

The applicant, Egbert Elsholz, a German national born in 1947, lives in Hamburg (Germany). He is the father of the child C., born out of wedlock on 13 December 1986.

Since November 1985 the applicant lived with the child’s mother and her elder son. In June 1988 the mother, together with the two children, moved out of the flat. The applicant continued to see his son frequently until July 1991. On several occasions, he also spent his holidays with the two children and their mother. Subsequently, no more visits took place. When questioned by an official of the Erkrath Youth Office (Jugendamt) at his home in December 1991, C. stated that he did not wish to have further contacts with his father.

In December 1992 the Mettmann District Court (Amtsgericht) dismissed the applicant's request to be granted a right of access (Umgangsregelung). The District Court considered that contacts with the father would not enhance the child's well-being.

The applicant's renewed request to be granted access was dismissed by the Mettmann District Court in December 1993. The Court referred to its prior decision of December 1992 and found that the conditions under Article 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) concerning the father’s right to personal contact with his child born out of wedlock were not met. It noted that the applicant's relationship with the child's mother was so strained that the enforcement of access rights could not be envisaged. If the child were to be with the applicant against his mother's will, this would put him into a loyalty conflict which he could not cope with and which would affect his well-being. The Court added that it was irrelevant which parent was responsible for the tensions. After two long interviews with the child, the District Court reached the conclusion that his development would be endangered if the child had to take up contacts with his father contrary to his mother’s will. The District Court furthermore considered that the facts of the case had been established clearly and exhaustively for the purposes of Article 1711 of the Civil Code. It therefore found it unnecessary to obtain an expert opinion.

On 21 January 1994 the Wuppertal Regional Court (Landgericht), without a hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal. The Regional Court found, in line with the decision appealed against, that the tensions between the parents had negative effects on the child, as was confirmed by the hearings with the child held in November 1992 and December 1993, and that contacts with his father were not therefore in the child's best interest, even less so because these contacts had in fact been interrupted for about two and a half years. It was irrelevant who was responsible for the break-up of life in common. What mattered was that in the present situation contacts with the father would negatively affect the child. This conclusion, in the Regional Court’s view, was obvious, which was why there was no necessity of obtaining an opinion from an expert in psychology. The Regional Court finally observed that there was no necessity to hear the parents and the child again since there was no indication that any findings more favourable for the applicant could result from such a hearing.

In April 1994 a panel of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to entertain the applicant's constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde).

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 October 1994. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 1 March 1999 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 (fifteen votes to twelve), that no separate issue arose as regarded Article 8 taken alone (fifteen votes to twelve), and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (seventeen votes to ten). It referred the case to the Court on 7 June 1999. The applicant had brought the case before the Court on 25 May 1999.

Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:

Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,
Elisabeth Palm (Swedish),
Jean-Paul Costa (French),
Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian),
Lucius Caflisch (Swiss),
Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian),
Karel Jungwiert (Czech),
Josep Casadevall (Andorran),
Boštjan Zupancic (Slovenian),
John Hedigan (Irish),
Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch),
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia),
Tudor Pantîru (Moldovan),
András Baka (Hungarian),
Egils Levits (Latvian),
Kristaq Traja (Albanian),
Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges

and also Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment

Complaints

The applicant complained that the German court decisions dismissing his request for access to his son, a child born out of wedlock, amounted to a breach of Article 8, that he had been a victim of discriminatory treatment in breach of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 and that his right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 had been breached.

Decision of the Court

Article 8

The Court recalled that the notion of family under this provision was not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth. Thus there existed between the child and his parents a bond amounting to family life. The Court further recalled that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constituted a fundamental element of family life, even if the relationship between the parents had broken down, and domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amounted to an interference with the right protected by Article 8.

The Court considered that the decisions refusing the applicant access to his son interfered with the applicant’s exercise of his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 8. Such interference constituted a violation of Article 8 unless it was "in accordance with the law", pursued an aim or aims that were legitimate under paragraph 2 of this provision and could be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society".

In the Court’s view the court decisions of which the applicant complained had a basis in national law, namely, Article 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code as in force at the relevant time, and were clearly aimed at protecting the "health or morals" and the "rights and freedoms" of the child. Accordingly they were in accordance with the law and pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8.

In determining whether the impugned measure was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court considered whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and notably the importance of the decisions to be taken, the applicant had been involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests. The combination of the refusal to order an independent psychological report and the absence of a hearing before the Regional Court revealed, in the Court’s opinion, an insufficient involvement of the applicant in the decision-making process. The Court thus concluded that the national authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation, thereby violating the applicant's rights under Article 8.

Article 14 taken together with Article 8

The Court did not find it necessary to consider whether the former German legislation as such, namely, Article 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code, made an unjustifiable distinction between fathers of children born out of wedlock and divorced fathers, such as to be discriminatory within the meaning of Article 14, since the application of this provision in the present case did not appear to have led to a different approach than would have ensued in the case of a divorced couple.

The Court noted that the German court decisions were clearly based on the danger to the child’s development if he had to take up contact with the applicant contrary to the will of the mother. The risk to the child’s welfare was thus the paramount consideration. Consequently, it could not be said on the facts of the present case that a divorced father would have been treated more favourably. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

Article 6 § 1

The Court, having regard to its findings with respect to Article 8, considered that in the present case, because of the lack of psychological expert evidence and the circumstance that the Regional Court did not conduct a further hearing, the proceedings, taken as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a fair and public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. There had thus been a breach of this provision.

Article 41

The Court found it impossible to assert that the relevant decisions would have been different if the violation of the Convention had not occurred. However, it could not, in the Court’s opinion, be excluded that if the applicant had been more involved in the decision-making process, he might have obtained some degree of satisfaction and this could have changed his future relationship with the child. In addition, the applicant certainly suffered non-pecuniary damage through anxiety and distress. The Court thus concluded that the applicant suffered some non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation of the Convention and awarded him DEM 35,000.

The Court further awarded the applicant DEM 12,584.26 for costs and expenses

Judge Baka joined by Judges Palm, Hedigan and Levits expressed a partly dissenting opinion and this is annexed to the judgment.

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2000/Jul_Aug/Elsholz%20jud%20epress.htm