Abstract

This paper summarizes the arguments and counterarguments within the scientific discussion on the issue of choosing between Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) or/and Article 8 (Right to family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter ‘ECHR’) when being applied by the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ‘ECtHR’) in parent-child relationship cases. The main purpose of this research is to understand these provisions and their interplay. There is no particular systematization of literary sources and approaches for solving this problem, because it is new. The analysis of applications lodged before the ECtHR indicates that the applicants usually raise both provisions for the reason of procedural safety. What is the response of the ECtHR? The investigation in this paper concerning the topic ‘what is protected by which provision, and is there any pattern in the application of Articles 6 and 8 in cases involving both provisions?’ is carried out in the following logical sequence: Relevant legal framework (Section 2); Research interest and question (Section 3); Research methodology (Section 4); Parental authority, custody, and access/contact, regarding cases respectively involving Articles 6 and 8 ECHR (Section 5). The methodological tool of the research method was the ECtHR Hudoc database. The object of the research is the ECtHR, because, namely, this institution interprets Article 6 and Article 8 of the ECHR. The paper presents the results of an empirical analysis of 212 judgments delivered by the ECtHR during the last twenty years. These showed that, with regard to the interplay between Articles 6 and 8 ECHR, there are some trends in its case-law which give guidance to the applicants, the judges and other practitioners concerned, as well as to scholars. The results of the research can be useful in efficiently analysing, applying, defending and adjudicating these rights.

Keywords: right to a fair trial, right to family life, parental authority, parental care, access / contact, European Convention on Human Rights.

JEL Classification: K15, K36, K38, K41.

Cite as: Dagmara Rajska (2020). Parent-Child Relationship Cases Before the ECtHR. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(1), 36-64. http://doi.org/10.21272/sec.4(1).36-64.2020.

References

1. Alston P., Goodman R. (2013). ‘Measuring and Evaluating Human Rights Performance’ [in:] International human rights, Oxford University Press, pp. 1225-1277. https://www.academia.edu/38952337/International_Human_Rights
2. Bodnar A. (2013). Res interpretata: Legal Effect of the European Court of Human Rights Judgments from other States than those which were party to the proceedings, in: Haeck Y., Brems E. Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2013, p. 223. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-4215793
3. Çali B. (2016). ‘From flexible to variable standards of judicial review: Responsible domestic courts doctrine and ECtHR’, [in:] Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection. Rethinking relations between the ECtHR, EU, and national legal orders, Arnardóttir O.M., Buyse A. (eds.), Routledge, pp. 144-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019616000018
4. Costa J.P. (2008). ‘The European Court of Human Rights: consistency of its case-law and positive obligations, Speech at Leiden University, 30 May 2008’, [in:] Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 26/3, p. 450. https://doi.org/10.1177/016934410802600308
5. Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2019, p. 13 (para 29), p. 14 (para 35), p. 60 (paras 286-293) available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf (visited 9 February 2020).
6. Council of Europe (1980), European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children, Article 1 c), available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680078b09 (visited 13 July 2019).
7. Cremona J.J. (1990) ‘The public character of trial and judgment in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’ [in:] Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension: Studies in honour of Gérard J. Wiarda, Matscher F., Petzold H. (eds.), Carl Heymanns, Cologne. https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:000140380
8. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights/European Court of Human Rights/Council of Europe (2015), Handbook on European law relating to the rights of the child, pp. 82, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-ecthr-2015-handbook-european-law-rights-of-the-child_en.pdf (visited 24 February 2020).
9. European Court of Human Rights (2019), Annual Report 2019, p. 131: 84 % of all applications lodged at the European Court of Human Rights are declared inadmissible, Available at https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2019_ENG.pdf (visited 1 February 2020).
10. European Court of Human Rights (2020), Rules of Court, Article 18b and 54, available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf (visited 20 February 2020).
11. European Court of Human Rights (2017), HUDOC User Manual, available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_Manual_ENG.PDF (visited 20 February 2020).
12. Garlicki L. (2010). ‘Komentarz do art. 8. Prawo do poszanowania życia prywatnego i rodzinnego’ [in:] Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności, Vol. I, Komentarz do artykułów 1-18, Garlicki L. (ed.), C.H. Beck, p. 519. https://pdf.helion.pl/e_0rmv/e_0rmv.pdf
13. Harris D., O’Boyle M., Bates E.P., Buckley C.M., et al. (2018). ‘Article 6: The right to a fair trial’, [in:] Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 373-374. DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198785163.001.0001.
14. Hofmański P., Wróbel A. (2010). ‘Komentarz do art. 8. Prawo do poszanowania życia prywatnego i rodzinnego’ [in:] Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności, Komentarz do artykułów 1-18, Vol. I, Garlicki L. (ed.), C.H. Beck, p. 270. https://pdf.helion.pl/e_0rmv/e_0rmv.pdf
15. Hofmański P., Wróbel A. (2010). ‘Komentarz do art. 6. Prawo do rzetelnego procesu sądowego’ [in:] Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności, Vol. I, Komentarz do artykułów 1-18, Garlicki L. (ed.), C.H. Beck, p. 357. https://pdf.helion.pl/e_0rmv/e_0rmv.pdf
16. Keller H. (2016). ‘Article 8 in the system of the Convention’, [in:] Family forms and parenthood. Theory and practice of Article 8 ECHR in Europe, Büchler A., Keller H. (eds.), Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland, pp. 3-28. DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2018-0022
17. Mole N., Harby C. (2006). The right to a fair trial: a Guide to the implementation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Handbooks, No. 3, 2nd edition, Strasbourg, as cited in Delcourt v Belgium App no 2689/65, para 25 (ECtHR, 17 January 1970), p. 5, available at: https://rm.coe.int/168007ff49 (visited 20 February 2020).
18. Quillere-Majzoub F. (1999). La défense du droit à un procès équitable, Bruylant, pp. 42-55. https://www.academia.edu/6086700/LE_DROIT_A_UN_PROCES_EQUITABLE_ET_LE_JUGE_ADMINISTRATIF_PAR_FABIENNE_QUILLERE-MAJZOUB
19. Rädler P. (1998). ‘Independence and impartiality of judges’, [in:] The right to a fair trial, Weissbrodt D., Wolfrum R. (eds.), Springer, pp. 727-746. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/fairtrial/FairTrialBook.htm
20. Rainey B., Wicks E., Ovey C. (2014) ‘The right to a fair trial in civil and criminal cases’, [in:] Jacobs, White & Ovey The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th Edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 263-268. DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198767749.001.0001.
21. Rajska D. (2016). Comparative study of remedies against the excessive length of proceedings in Poland and in Serbia, Council of Europe, Belgrade. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806f0ef7 (visited 10 April 2019).
22. Rajska D. (2015). The right to a fair trial in France and in Poland, PUAM, France. https://rm.coe.int/16806f0ef7
23. United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 para 3, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (visited 24 February 2020).
24. Vitkauskas D., Dikov G. (2017). Protecting the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe Human Rights Handbooks, 2nd edition, Strasbourg, p. 11, available at: https://rm.coe.int/protecting-the-right-to-a-fair-trial-under-the-european-convention-on-/168075a4dd (visited 20 February 2020).

ECtHR case law (complementary to the annexed table of ECtHR case law)

1. Alpha Doryforiki Tileorasi Anonymi Etairia v Greece App no 72562/10 (ECtHR, 22 February 2018). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-181295%22]}
2. Aresti Charalambous v Cyprus App no 43151/04 (ECtHR, 19 July 2007).
3. Bédat v Switzerland [GC] App no 56925/08 (ECtHR, 29 March 2016). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-161898%22]}
4. Bianchi v Switzerland App no 7548/04 (ECtHR, 22 June 2006). https://www.incadat.com/en/case/869
5. Burdov v Russia App no 59498/00 (ECtHR, 7 May 2002). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60449
6. Draon v France [GC] App no 1513/03 (ECtHR, 6 October 2005). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-75905
7. G.B. v France App no 44069/98 (ECtHR, 2 October 2001).
8. Golder v the UK App no 4451/70 (ECtHR, 21 February 1975). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57496
9. Gül v Switzerland App no 23218/94 (ECtHR, 19 February 1996). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57975
10. Havelka and Others v the Czech Republic App no 23499/06 (ECtHR, 21 June 2007).
11. Hornsby v Greece App no 18357/91 (ECtHR, 19 March 1997). http://echr.ketse.com/doc/18357.91-en-19970319/
12. Iordan Iordanov and Others v Bulgaria App no 23530/02 (ECtHR, 2 July 2009).
13. Jasiūnienė v Lithuania App no 41510/98 (ECtHR, 6 March 2003). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60975%22]}
14. Johnston and others v Ireland App no 9697/82 (ECtHR, 18 December 1986). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57508%22]}
15. Jonasson v Sweden App no 59403/00 (ECtHR, 12 July 2005).
16. K. and T. v Finland App no 25702/94 (ECtHR, 12 July 2001). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-59587%22]}
17. Kalanyos and Others v Romania App no 57884/00 (ECtHR, 26 April 2007).
18. Kearns v France App no 35991/04 (ECtHR, 10 January 2008). https://swarb.co.uk/kearns-v-france-echr-10-jan-2008/
19. Keegan v Ireland App no 16969/90 (ECtHR, 26 May 1994). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57881
20. L. v the Netherlands App no 45582/99 (ECtHR, 1 June 2004). https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,5852a7e54.html
21. Lück v Germany App no 58364/00 (ECtHR, 15 May 2008).
22. Macready v the Czech Republic App no 4824/06 and 15512/08 (ECtHR, 22 April 2010). https://www.incadat.com/en/case/1159
23. Maurice v France [GC] App no 11810/03 (ECtHR, 6 October 2005). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70445
24. Mitovi v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (so-called Republic of North Macedonia since February 2019), App no 53565/13 (ECtHR, 16 April 2015).
25. Perez Arias v Spain App no 32978/03 (ECtHR, 28 June 2007). http://echr.ketse.com/doc/32978.03-en-20070628/
26. Przydział v Poland App no 15487/08 (ECtHR, 24 May 2016). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-5382886-6727820&filename=Judgments%20of%2024.05.16.pdf
27. R. v the UK App no 10496/83 (for the remainder of the admissibility decision R. v the UK, European Commission of Human Rights (hereafter ‘ECmHR’), 14 May 1984) (ECtHR, 8 July 1987).
28. Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v the Netherlands App no 50435/99 (ECtHR, 31 January 2006). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-72205
29. Ruianu v Romania App no 34647/97 (ECtHR, 17 June 2003). https://ru.scribd.com/document/332821744/ECHR-Guide-Art-6-Civil-ENG
30. Rytchenko v Russia App no 22266/04 (ECtHR, 20 January 2011). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-102894&filename=001-102894.pdf
31. Salduz v Turkey App no 36391/02 (ECtHR, 27 November 2008). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89893
32. Santos Nunes v Portugal App no 61173/08 (ECtHR, 22 May 2012). https://vaikoteises.lt/media/file/ivaikinimas2/ECHR_cases_concerning_children_r.doc.pdf
33. Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v Finland [GC] App no 931/13 (ECtHR, 27 June 2017). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-175121%22]}
34. Schwarzkopf and Taussik v the Czech Republic (dec.) App no 42162/02 (ECtHR, 2 December 2008).
35. Senchishak v. Finland App no 5049/12 (ECtHR, 18 November 2014). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-148076%22]}
36. Soares de Melo v Portugal App no 72850/14 (ECtHR, 16 February 2016). https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-ihrl/4018echr16.case.1/law-ihrl-4018echr16
37. Ştefan and Ştef v Romania App nos. 24428/03 and 26977/03 (ECtHR, 27 January 2009).
38. Tapia Gasca and D. v Spain App no 20272/06 (ECtHR, 22 December 2009). https://crossbordermediator.eu/Portals/1/Docs/Hear_me_out_Case_Law_Results.pdf
39. Vereshchagin and Others v Russia App no 30155/05 et al. (ECtHR, 14 June 2018). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-101936%22]}