Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Hunt v Ukraine (Application no 3111/04)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : hunt-v-ukraine-application-no-3111-04
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 7, 2007, 09:05 AM
Article ID : 86957

(European Court of Human Rights; 7 December 2006)

The Ukrainian authorities prohibited the father from re-entering the Ukraine, on the basis of a request from the mother shortly after the parents' divorce, in which she asserted that the father had threatened to abduct the child and had a violent past. The mother then obtained a court order depriving the father of parental rights, on the basis that he was not actively involved in the child's life. The father was unable to participate in these proceedings because of the prohibition on his entry into the Ukraine. The father's various appeals against both orders were unsuccessful.

There had been a violation of Art 8. The prohibition on the father entering the Ukraine had resulted in the father not being involved in the decision making process to the extent necessary to protect his interests. The State had failed to strike a fair balance between the rights of the husband and the rights of the child.

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