Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

RESIDENCE/HUMAN RIGHTS: Damjanović v Serbia

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
(European Court of Human Rights; 18 November 2008)
Slug : damnjanoviand-231-v-serbia
Meta Title : RESIDENCE/HUMAN RIGHTS: Damjanović v Serbia
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 26, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88645

(European Court of Human Rights; 18 November 2008)

The father had refused to comply with court orders requiring that the children live with the mother. The court fined the father twice and at one point ordered the physical removal of the children from his care. However, this order was not enforced in the face of the children's objections. The father was found guilty of parental child abduction and was sentenced to 6 months suspended for one year. The mother complained that she had been prevented from exercising her parental rights in respect of the children, by the failure of the authorities to enforce court orders, and that her Art 8 and Art 6 rights had thereby been breached.

Noting that the children had made it clear that they wanted to remain with the father, that the state social care centre had played a constructive role in proceedings, that the domestic court had attempted to get the father to cooperate and that ultimately the mother had been unable to resume physical custody of the children in the absence of their explicit consent, the court held that there had been no breaches of the mother's human rights.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from