WICHTIG! EGMR - Deutschland *endlich* verurteilt |
| Wir haben Jahre gewartet und endlich ist es soweit: Der Europaeische Gerichtshof fuer Menschenrechte hat HEUTE Deutschland in einem Umgangsverfahren (mit PAS) zum Schadensersatz (DM 35.000) und Erstattung der Gerichtskosten (DM 12.500) verurteilt. |
| Die Entscheidung duerfte auch fuer viele andere Faelle aeusserst bedeutungsvoll sein. |
| Sie erhalten hier in der Anlage zunaechst die komplette Entscheidung in englisch. paPPa.com bemueht sich, in den naechsten Tagen eine deutsche Uebersetzung zur Verfuegung zu stellen und ausserdem erste Hinweise, wie diese Entscheidung in laufenden Umgangsverfahren genutzt werden kann. |
| Wir geben hier ausserdem die heutigen Infos von Vater fuer Kinder e.V. weiter |
| Wir geben hier ausserdem die heutigen Infos von Vater fuer Kinder e.V. weiter |
| http://www.vaeterfuerkinder.de/vfkneu.htm |
Deutschland wegen Menschenrechtsverletzung Art 6, 8 EMRK) vom Europ—ischen Gerichtshof verurteilt: Verweigerung eines Umgangsrechts.
[Complete Court Decision in English] |
|
Press Release — Pressemitteilung |
|
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ELSHOLZ v. GERMANY |
| The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Elsholz v.Germany. |
| The Court [of Human] 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 ... (continued – in English...) |
|
| Es folgt eine Darstellung des Sachverhaltes und der Urteilsbegr—ndung. Der Sachverhalt ist uns allerdings aus aehnlichen Faellen leider sehr bekannt [vgl. dazu sogar den folgenden Artikel aus Le Figaro, insbesondere —ber die W—rdigung des "Kindeswillens" durch ,,germanische Gerichte", sowie unsere Informationen zu PAS und ,,Umgangsausschluss im Sinne des Kindeswohls?"]. Deshalb ist die Entscheidung auch f—r viele andere Faelle aesserst bedeutungsvoll: |
| Mutter zieht nach 3 Jahren mit ihrem aelteren Sohn und dem gemeinsamen nichtehelichen Kind 1988 aus der gemeinsamen Wohnung aus. Vater hat noch etwa 3 Jahre lang haeufigen Umgang mit seinem Sohn, bis Juli 1991. Im Dezember erklaert der Sohn, gerade f—nfjaehrig (!!) dem Jugendamt, dass er keine weiteren Kontakte mit seinem Vater w—nsche. Daraufhin werden Umgangsersuchen von allen Instanzen abgelehnt, mit den bekannten Begr—ndungen: Ein Umgang gegen den Willen des Kindes und des sorgeberechtigten Elternteils w—rde dem Kindeswohl widersprechen. Das war auch f—r das Berufungsgericht (Landgericht) so selbstverstaendlich, dass auch dieses die Einschaltung eines psychologischen Sachverstaendigen f—r unnoetig hielt, und sogar von einer weiteren Anhoerung der Eltern und des Kindes absah. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wurde nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen (1994). |
| Wir bringen aus dem Urteil hier einen Auszug zum Parental Alienation Syndrom, der uns besonders bemerkenswert erscheint. |
| [Anmerkung paPPa.com: Bitte unbedingt beachten, dass dies nicht die Argumentation des Europ. Gerichtshofs, sondern leider nur die Wiedergabe des Vorbringens des klagenden Vaters ist. Das ist bei "Vaeter fuer Kinder" leider missverstaendlich dargestellt.] |
|
[...continued in English]
32. In their decisions, both the Mettmann District Court and the Wuppertal Regional Court refused the applicant access to his son on the grounds that the bad relationship between the parents exposed the child to a conflict of loyalty, and that at the two court hearings the child called his father "nasty" or "stupid", adding that on no account did he want to see him. At the second hearing, the child, who was then almost six years old, said: "Mommy always says Egbert is not my father. Mommy is afraid of Egbert." |
| According to the applicant, this statement was made under the influence of the mother or one of her close acquaintances and with her approval. Another statement made by the child and recorded by the court showed that the mother had scared the child by running away when meeting the father by coincidence. |
| 33. These statements by the child were, in the applicant's submission, extremely important because they showed that the mother programmed the child against his father, making him a victim of what was called the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). The child therefore totally rejected any contact with his father. If a report had been obtained from a competent family or child psychologist at that time, it could have shown that the child had been influenced or used by the mother against the father. For this reason, the decision of the two courts not to appoint an expert, as requested by him and recommended by the Youth Office, was not only a violation of the father's interests but also of those of the child, since contacts with the other parent were in the child's best medium- and long-term interests. |
| 34. By refusing to allow the father access to his child and by ruling in favour of the mother, who had been given sole custody, the German courts, including the Federal Constitutional Court, violated the State's constitutional duty to protect its citizens against violations of their rights by private individuals. The State must enforce the observance of human rights in its domestic legal order. |
| 35. The results of American research concerning the PAS had been available since 1984 and 1992. They very soon led to a large number of specialised publications and were taken into account by American and Canadian courts in their case-law. |
If Germany had been prepared to adopt the results of the research carried out in the United States, where far larger research budgets were available, and to act upon them, the court could, at the time, have reached a different decision, because the judge who questioned the child could have interpreted differently the child's remarks rejecting his father. At the very least, however, the court should have appointed a competent expert familiar with the specific psycho-dynamics of family relations.
***
http://www.paPPa.com |
| [The full court decision is available on-line, in English – as an MS Word 7 RTF document.] |
|
|
Share
