Jeg har i en tidligere tråd nevnt dommen i saken MOSER v. AUSTRIA

Her er en lenke til dommen:

Moser v. Austria

Anbefaler at dommen leses av flest mulig. Denne dommen innebærer er at at en lukket sak i fylkesnemnden strider mot EMK.

Kommentarer.

Kan du ikke engelsk? Dette er en elendig automatisk oversettelse av en datamaskin.
http://www.r-b-v.net/moser_v_austria.htm

_________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
.
"Vårt" lysebrune-mørkerøde såkalte barnevern stjeler mennesker
> Radikalt forum mot familiedestruksjon: http://forum.r-b-v.net/<

Sammendrag av dommen:

Moser v. Austria (application no. 12643/02) Three violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

The applicants, Zlatica Moser and her son, Luca Moser, are Serbian nationals. Ms Moser was born in 1973 and has been living in Austria since 1991. In December 1999 she married an Austrian citizen. On 8 June 2000 she gave birth to Luca in a hospital in Vienna. Her husband contested the paternity of the child.

The day after the birth, the Vienna Youth Welfare Office ordered that Ms Moser should not be able to take the baby with her from the hospital because she could not provide suitable accommodation for her son and given her inadequate financial means and unclear residence status. (In August 1999 the Vienna Federal Police Authority had issued a five-year residence prohibition against her since she had been working illegally.) On 16 June 2000 Luca was placed with foster parents.

On 3 December 2000 the Juvenile Court granted custody of the child to the Youth Welfare Office. In its decision the court referred to information given by Ms Moser on 2 August 2000. The court also relied on reports carried out by the Youth Welfare Office and the Juvenile Court Assistance Office.

Ms Moser appealed complaining that neither the Juvenile Court itself nor the other authorities involved in her case had made any effort to help her regulate her residence status or to help her maintain contact with her child. Her appeal was dismissed.

She appealed again on points of law. She complained that, among other things, she had not been sufficiently involved in the proceedings and that she had had no access to the court files. She asserted that the authorities involved had not suggested alternative measures, such as placing her in a mother-child centre. Furthermore, she complained that there were no public and oral hearings in the custody proceedings and that the decisions were not pronounced publicly. Her appeal was rejected in August 2001.

Ms Moser currently has access rights to see Luca for two hours a month, on their birthdays and at Christmas. The residence prohibition on her was lifted in November 2004 and she has been granted a residence permit for a limited duration.

The applicants complained about the transfer of custody of Luca to the Youth Welfare Office, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, the applicants complained of discrimination on account of their nationality. The Ms Moser further alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

The European Court of Human Rights noted that the courts failed to explore possibilities which would have allowed the applicants to remain together or stay in close contact while the proceedings were pending. The Court considered that the fact that Ms Moser had only twice been able to see her son in the six months between his birth and the decision transferring custody to the Youth Welfare Office, was particularly serious, given that they had not had a chance to bond, since Luca had been removed immediately after his birth.

The Court also considered that Ms Moser was not sufficiently involved in the decision-making process in that she was only heard once by the Juvenile Court and that the court relied on reports which had not been served on the applicant and on which she had had no possibility to comment. The Court also observed that the appeal proceedings were conducted without holding any hearing. It therefore concluded that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts were not sufficient to justify such a serious interference with the applicants’ family life and were not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 as regards the transfer of custody of Luca to the Youth Welfare Office.

The Court noted that the 1990 Vienna Youth Welfare Act did not make any distinction on the basis of nationality and that there was no indication in the file that the failure to examine the possibility of a placement in a mother-child centre was based on the applicants’ status as foreigners. Consequently, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 14.

The Court also held unanimously that there had been three violations of Article 6 § 1. These were due to the failure to give Ms Moser an opportunity to comment on the reports of the Youth Welfare Office and the Juvenile Court Assistance Office, the failure to hold a public hearing and the failure to pronounce publicly the judgments in the proceedings.

The Court awarded Ms Moser 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,694.74 for costs and expenses. It held that the finding of a violation of Article 8 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage Luca might have suffered. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Lenke: Sammendrag

Retten skriver i dommen at den finner at Artikkel 8 om rett til respekt for privat- og familieliv har blitt krenket, men får fru Moser sønnen Luca tilbake?

Hva er vitsen med en dom som bare gir deg rett uten at du får rett?

_________________
“ Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State,
Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy
remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There
will be anarchy.” Lord Denning (1899-1999)

Faktisk leste jeg nå fra dommen (ikke sammendrag):

38. The first applicant has so far not filed a request to re-transfer custody of the second applicant to her, but considers that regular visits serve to prepare a re-transfer of custody.

Denne dommen er uansett viktig for liknende saker (dvs. alle saker som handler om omsorgsovertakelse) i alle europeiske land. Det ble sitert fra dommen i dommen fra England som jeg har referert til i en annen tråd.

Også fra dommen:

21. .....in her contacts with the Juvenile Court and the other authorities involved she had not obtained any support to regulate her residence status or any help to preserve her relationship with her child. She had gained the impression that from the very beginning they were determined to place her child with foster parents.

36. On 11 March 2005 an expert in child psychology submitted an opinion, stating that the second applicant was caught in a loyalty conflict between this foster parents and the first applicant. Nevertheless, contacts with the first applicant in intervals of three to four weeks were in his interest.

(Mine uthevinger)

Ordforklaringer:
First applicant: Ms Moser
Second applicant: Luca, sønnen
Juvenile Court: tilsvarende fylkesnemnda


Høres dette kjent ut?

Hvis hun skal få sønnen tilbake, må hun enten reise sak i Østerrike og vise til dommen ved EMD, eller Østerrike kunne selv ta initiativ til tilbakeføring. Det er ikke sikkert at hun får sønnen igjen selv etter en klar EMD-dom; sosiale myndigheter er seg selv temmelig like verden rundt. Adele Johansen fikk ikke datteren Signe Malene tilbake. Riktignok var det godt en god del år etter Strasbourg-dommen mot Norge før Adele fikk en advokat som tok fatt i saken og prøvet å få stoppet bort-adopteringen. Hennes tidligere advokat tror på psykolog og barnevern, som naturligvis på ethvert tidspunkt hevdet at barnet nå var "knyttet" til fosterforeldrene og at de er barnets psykologiske foreldre, slik at barnet ikke kan tåle å forlate dem og blir skadelidende ved å få fri kontakt med sine biologiske foreldre. Men barnevernet og psyko-"ekspertene" ville ha hevdet det samme i Adele-saken også i tidligere år. At det ikke er sant generelt, viser forskningen godt. At det heller ikke er sant i den saken, vet vi. Signe Malene hadde i årevis søkt sin mor – det kom frem i rettssakene rundt år 2000, og hun har etter som hun ble nesten voksen prøvet enda kraftigere å komme i kontakt med sin familie. Det er problematisk på grunn av den skadelige behandling og de usannheter myndighetene har utsatt Adele og familien for i alle år.

Når det gjelder hva som er vitsen med en dom som ikke får konsekvenser, viser jeg til Agrippas tilsvarende spørsmål i tråden om Sancez Cardenas og mitt svar der. Hele EMK-behandlingen var tenkt å være et ideal for landene, slik at landene skulle rette opp sine feil av egen drift, EMK Samvær.

Agrippas spørsmål er godt, men Strasbourg-domstolen har altså ingen makt over statene som er medlemmer. Hvis noe flertall i Europarådet prøvet seg på å gi den sånn makt, ville vel statene melde seg ut.

Forøvrig er EMD egentlig STATENES instrument! Domstolen var i begynnelsen statenes middel til å få prøvet vedtak om krenkelse av menneskerettighetene, vedtak fattet av Menneskerettighetskommisjonen, som var den instans som sto for granskning av sakene. Det var tenkt at statene da stort sett ville bøye seg for et kommisjonsvedtak og bare gå til Domstolen i tvilstilfeller. Men bøye seg gjorde statene ofte ikke, og dermed ble det nærmest dobbelt-behandling, fordi hele saken måtte opp igjen for Domstolen. Kommisjonen ble avskaffet for ca 8 år siden (var det visst), og erstattet av en ankeinstans i Domstolen (Grand Chamber) som statene kan bruke.

Marianne
  

_________________
Hjemmeside http://www.mhskanland.net