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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
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...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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