El portal de Derecho Español más completo y útil para jurístas, empresas y particulares
Bienvenid@
Caso Sommerfeld
- Foros Legales
- Derecho Familia
- Tema: Caso sommerfeld
- Derecho Familia
Nuevo Comentario
2
Comentarios
Caso sommerfeld
11 October 2001
THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER,
WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON
08/07/2003
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sommerfeld v. Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr A. PASTOR RIDRUEJO, President,
Mr G. RESS,
Mr L. CAFLISCH,
Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO,
Mr V. BUTKEVYCH,
Mrs N. VAJIÆ,
Mr M. PELLONPÄÄ, judges,
and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2001,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 31871/96) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Manfred Sommerfeld (“the applicant”), on 7 June 1995.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented before the Court by Mrs S. Hierstetter, a lawyer practising in Munich. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs H. Voelskow-Thies, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice, at the initial stage of the proceedings, and subsequently by Mr K. Stoltenberg, Ministerialdirigent, also of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the German court decisions dismissing his request for access to his daughter, born out of wedlock, amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his family life and that he was a victim of discriminatory treatment in this respect. He further complained about a breach of his right to a fair hearing. He invoked Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention.
4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).
5. The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
6. By a decision of 12 December 2000 the Chamber declared the application partly admissible.
7. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. The applicant, born in 1953, is the father of the child M., born out of wedlock on 25 January 1981. The applicant recognised his paternity of M.
9. The applicant and the child’s mother lived together at the time of the child’s birth. They separated in September 1986. The child’s mother prohibited any contacts between the applicant and the child. The applicant still met M. several times at school until such contacts were no longer possible. Subsequently the child’s mother married Mr W., the father of her child A., born in August 1985, W. being the common family name.
A. The first request for visiting arrangements
10. On 2 October 1990 the applicant applied to the Rostock District Court for a decision granting him a right of access (Umgangsregelung) to his daughter. Having heard the persons concerned, the Rostock Youth Office advised against a right of access. The Youth Office submitted that M. had established a close relationship with Mr. W. which would be adversely affected by contacts between M. and her natural father. It also stated that M., when heard in the absence of her mother, had indicated that she was not keen to see the applicant and was suffering from his continuing efforts for access.
11. On 27 June 1991 M., then ten years old, was heard by the competent District Court Judge. She stated that the fact that the applicant was always standing at the fence of the schoolyard disturbed her and that she did not wish to visit the applicant even if access should be ordered by the court.
THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER,
WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON
08/07/2003
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sommerfeld v. Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr A. PASTOR RIDRUEJO, President,
Mr G. RESS,
Mr L. CAFLISCH,
Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO,
Mr V. BUTKEVYCH,
Mrs N. VAJIÆ,
Mr M. PELLONPÄÄ, judges,
and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2001,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 31871/96) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Manfred Sommerfeld (“the applicant”), on 7 June 1995.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented before the Court by Mrs S. Hierstetter, a lawyer practising in Munich. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs H. Voelskow-Thies, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice, at the initial stage of the proceedings, and subsequently by Mr K. Stoltenberg, Ministerialdirigent, also of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the German court decisions dismissing his request for access to his daughter, born out of wedlock, amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his family life and that he was a victim of discriminatory treatment in this respect. He further complained about a breach of his right to a fair hearing. He invoked Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention.
4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).
5. The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
6. By a decision of 12 December 2000 the Chamber declared the application partly admissible.
7. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. The applicant, born in 1953, is the father of the child M., born out of wedlock on 25 January 1981. The applicant recognised his paternity of M.
9. The applicant and the child’s mother lived together at the time of the child’s birth. They separated in September 1986. The child’s mother prohibited any contacts between the applicant and the child. The applicant still met M. several times at school until such contacts were no longer possible. Subsequently the child’s mother married Mr W., the father of her child A., born in August 1985, W. being the common family name.
A. The first request for visiting arrangements
10. On 2 October 1990 the applicant applied to the Rostock District Court for a decision granting him a right of access (Umgangsregelung) to his daughter. Having heard the persons concerned, the Rostock Youth Office advised against a right of access. The Youth Office submitted that M. had established a close relationship with Mr. W. which would be adversely affected by contacts between M. and her natural father. It also stated that M., when heard in the absence of her mother, had indicated that she was not keen to see the applicant and was suffering from his continuing efforts for access.
11. On 27 June 1991 M., then ten years old, was heard by the competent District Court Judge. She stated that the fact that the applicant was always standing at the fence of the schoolyard disturbed her and that she did not wish to visit the applicant even if access should be ordered by the court.
