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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT/ENFORCEMENT/ECHR, ART 8: Prizzia v Hungary (Application No 20255/12)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:08 PM
Slug : prizzia-v-hungary-application-no-20255-12
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 12, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 102827

(European Court of Human Rights, 11 June 2013)

The Hungarian mother and American father married and had a son together in the USA. When the child was 3 years old the mother and child visited relatives in Hungary but failed to return and initiated divorce proceedings there. The father initiated Hague Convention proceedings in Hungary seeking a return of the child to the USA.

The Hungarian Supreme Court found that the mother's retention of the child was illegal but failed to grant a return order. Interim contact provisions were made pending divorce proceedings. Following the divorce the father was granted contact for 4 days each month and a month-long summer vacation with the father each year in the USA. The court found it was in the child's best interests to maintain emotional links with the father but found no evidence to support the mother's contention that the father may retain the child in the USA.

The mother failed to make the child available for contact in the USA and left Budapest for an unknown location. The father brought enforcement proceedings over a period of 4 years and although the mother was fined for non-compliance, contact did not take place. The child was now refusing to have contact with the father in the USA in the belief that he would not return him and that he no longer considered him to be a part of his family.

The father applied to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that the Hungarian authorities failed to ensure the enforcement of decisions concerning contact with his child in breach of Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 and that in reliance of Art 6, the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.

The Hungarian authorities had acted in breach of the father's Art 8 European Convention rights. The court considered that the substantial delay in enforcement proved decisive for the father's future relations with his son and had a particular quality of irreversibility. The financial sanctions imposed on the mother were inadequate to improve the situation. Notwithstanding the margin of appreciation afforded to the State, the national authorities did not take all the steps which could be reasonably required to enforce the father's access rights. The father was awarded damages of €22,500.

 

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