ECHR SUMMARY News Release Using The REGISTRAR 26.02.2004
The Eu Court of Human Legal legal legal rights has today notified on paper a judgment  within the situation of Grglv. Germany (application no. 74969/01). Legal Court held unanimously there is:
- a breach of Article 8 (to respect internet hosting and family existence) within the European Convention on Human Legal legal legal rights, concerning the refusal to own applicant child child child custody and access legal legal legal rights
- no breach of Article 8 concerning the decision-making process
- no breach of Article 6 § 1 (with a good hearing).
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) within the Convention, legal court awarded you 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment might be acquired only in British.)
1. Principal details
You, Kazim Grgl, could be a Turkish national of Zaza origin, who had previously been born in 1969 and resides in Krostitz, Germany.
On 10 The month from the month of the month of january 2000 Mr Grgl put on Wittenberg District Court for child child child custody of his boy, Christofer. who had previously been born from wedlock on 25 August 1999 and quit for adoption without his father’s consent. Mr Grgl had not resided with Christofer’s mother together with married another lady.
Various conferences were arranged relating to the applicant as well as the boy. On 8 Feb 2001 legal court adopted an interim measure by which contact between Christofer as well as the father ended up being be progressively elevated in one to eight hrs on six consecutive Saturdays. On 9 March 2001 legal court gave you sole child child child custody of Christofer. discovering it was subsequently within the child’s needs.
However, on 20 June 2001, Naumburg Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request child child child custody. Legal court believed that, even though the applicant could take proper proper care of his boy – along with his wife, who’d already elevated two children – granting child child child custody wouldn’t be in Christofer’s needs, since the deep social and emotional bond acquired between him as well as the promote family, that he’d resided for almost any year and ten a few days, and hubby would suffer severe and irreparable mental damage if separated from their site.
Legal court also decided to suspend the applicant’s access legal legal legal rights until 30 This summer time time 2002, within the interests of Christofer’s emotional stability, getting considered the unrest and insecurity inside an unresolved legal dispute.
2. Procedure and composition in the courtroom
The approval was lodged on 18 September 2001 and declared partially admissible on 20 March 2003. Judgment was given getting a Chamber of seven idol idol idol judges, composed the following: Lucius Caflisch (Swiss), President, Georg Ress (German), Pranas Kris (Lithuanian), Botjan Zupani (Slovenian), John Hedigan (Irish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), idol idol idol judges, additionally to Vincent Berger, Section Registrar.
3. Summary of the judgment 
You alleged that being declined usage of and child child child custody of his boy violated his to respect for his family existence. He reliable Article 8 (to respect internet hosting and family existence). Also, he hated the unfairness within the proceedings prior to the Court of Appeal, counting on Article 6 § 1 (with a good hearing).
Decision in the courtroom
Refusal of kid child child custody
Legal Court noted the fact you together with Christofer had not resided together may be of relevance when striking an equilibrium relating to the conflicting legal legal legal rights and interests within the applicant and individuals of Christofer’s promote parents. However Article 8 obliged Germany to reunite natural parents employing their children. The effective respect to some family event existence also vital that future relations between parent and child should not be using the mere passage of energy.
Legal Court conceded the immediate separation from his promote family may have had undesirable effects on Christofer’s mental and physical welfare. However, considering you was Christofer’s biological parent and undisputedly ready to take proper care of him, legal court wasn’t believing the (German) Court of Appeal examined all possible methods to the stage. Particularly, it didn’t hold the signs and signs and symptoms of examined whether it might be viable to unite Christofer along with the applicant under issues that will minimise the stress on Christofer. The (German) court apparently only focused on the imminent effects the separation from his promote parents might have, without with the extended-term connection between an long lasting separation from his natural father. The answer envisaged using the district court, namely to boost and facilitate contacts relating to the applicant and Christofer. who’d inside an initial stage continue living together with his promote family, was apparently not considered. Legal Court appreciated the options of reunification would diminish after a while and finally be destroyed altogether in situation your biological father and child weren’t permitted to satisfy one another whatsoever, or only so rarely that no natural bond may be prone to finish up created together. Legal Court, therefore, found a breach of Article 8.
Refusal of access legal legal legal rights
Concerning the suspension of access legal legal legal rights, legal court observed that until June 2001, you was only in a position to seeing his child six occasions. The (German) court of appeal’s decision made any kind of family reunion along with the establishment regardless of the sort of further family existence impossible. Legal Court appreciated it had been subsequently in Christofer’s interests for his family ties to obtain maintained, as severing such ties meant cutting him removed his roots, that might be justified in very exceptional conditions. There was not proof of such exceptional conditions within the situation in your mind. By revoking all decisions that will have granted you employ of his boy, legal court of appeal didn’t fulfil the positive obligation enforced by Article 8 to unite father and boy. Regardless of the season had passed in this particular summer time time 2002, the applicant’s tries to access his boy had still not been effective. Precisely why reliable to the court of attract suspend the applicant’s usage of his child to begin with year, were inadequate to warrant this sort of serious interference within the applicant’s family existence. There had, therefore, been a breach of Article 8.
The choice-making process
Legal Court noted you, helped by counsel, had the chance to supply his arguments on paper and orally. He was placed ready enabling him to place forward all arguments towards acquiring child child child custody and access legal legal legal rights anf the husband also had usage of all relevant information that was reliable using the courts. Legal Court further noted the evidential reason behind court of appeal’s decision incorporated evidence printed prior to the district court. Legal court of appeal additionally acquired research across the child’s well-being along with the applicant’s and promote parents’ housing facilities. Legal Court was therefore satisfied the procedural needs implicit in Article 8 were complied that you simply was sufficiently involved in the decision-making process. There had, therefore, been no breach of Article 8.
Legal Court found no indication the procedures or decisions adopted using the domestic courts were unfair, particularly because the applicant, symbolized having a lawyer, had the chance to challenge these products inside the expert opinions with the court proceedings. Concerning the proceedings prior to the Court of Appeal, there had, therefore, been no breach of Article 6 § 1.
The Court’s judgments are available on its Website (internet.echr.coe.int ).
Registry within the European Court of Human Legal legal legal rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 ()3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 ()3 90 21 42 15)
Stphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 ()3 88 41 21 54)
Fax: +00 33 ()3 88 41 27 91
The Eu Court of Human Legal legal legal rightswas put in Strasbourg using the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to cope with alleged violations within the 1950 European Convention on Human Legal legal legal rights. Since 1 November 1998 it’s sitting as being a full-time Court comprised of a lot us of idol idol idol judges fot it in the usa party for that Convention. Legal Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications printed inside it. It sits in Chambers of seven idol idol idol judges or, in exceptional cases, as being a Grand Chamber of 17 idol idol idol judges. The Committee of Ministers within the Council of Europe supervises the execution within the Court’s judgments.
 Under Article 43 within the European Convention on Human Legal legal legal rights, within three a few days inside the date in the Chamber judgment, any party for that situation may, in exceptional cases, ask the problem be known the 17member Grand Chamber in the courtroom. Because event, a panel of 5 idol idol idol judges views once the situation raises a considerable question affecting the interpretation or technique Convention or its protocols, or even a problem of general importance, by which situation the Grand Chamber provides you with one further judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, then your judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final across the expiry within the three-month period or earlier when the parties think that they don’t want to create a request to relate.
 This summary using the Registry doesn’t bind legal court.