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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
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