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...
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

HUMAN RIGHTS/CARE: Moser v Austria (Application No 12643/02)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : moser-v-austria-application-no-12643-02
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 21, 2006, 05:56 AM
Article ID : 86669

(European Court of Human Rights; 21 September 2006) [2006] 2 FLR (forthcoming)

The child was removed from the mother, a Serbian national, at birth on the basis that the mother could not provide suitable accommodation for the child, and because the mother's residence status in Austria was uncertain. The child was placed with foster parents and the mother had limited contact with the child. The mother complained that the authorities had made no attempt to help her with housing, residence or contact with child. She claimed that she had been insufficiently involved in proceedings and had had no access to court files. She also complained that there had been no public and oral hearings in the custody proceedings and that the courts' decisions had not been pronounced publicly.

There had been a failure to explore arrangements which would have allowed the mother and child to remain in close contact while proceedings were pending. In reaching its decisions, the domestic court had relied on reports not served on mother and which she had no opportunity to challenge. Also the appeal proceedings had been conducted without holding any hearing. In these respects there had been breaches of Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the European Convention). The failure to give the mother an opportunity to comment on the official reports, the failure to hold a public hearing and the failure to pronounce publicly the judgments in the proceedings constituted violations of Art 6(1) of the European Convention.

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