Information Note on the Court’s case-law 50
February 2003
Schaal v. Luxembourg - 51773/99
Judgment 18.2.2003 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Suspension of parent’s right of access pending criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of having raped his daughter: violation
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of criminal proceedings having repercussions on a parent’s right of access to his child: violation
Facts: In divorce proceedings brought by the applicant's wife, the latter lodged a complaint accusing him of sexually abusing their daughter, which led to the applicant being charged. The divorce, pronounced in July 1994, awarded custody of the minor child to the mother, whilst deferring the decision on whether to grant any access and/or overnight visiting rights to the applicant. In the criminal proceedings the applicant was committed for trial in March 1997 and in April 2000 was acquitted since the alleged offences were clearly not made out. In November 2000 the applicant applied for visiting rights and the right to have his daughter to stay overnight, which were granted by judgment of January 2001. The Court held that the mother had acted solely in order to harm the father and that her allegations were unsubstantiated by any objective evidence and were merely the result of psychological manipulation on her part.
Law: Article 6 – The relevant period was more than six years for one set of proceedings. Since the question of the applicant's visiting rights and/or the right to have his daughter to stay overnight had been suspended, Article 6 § 1 obliged the criminal court to act exceptionally expeditiously in order to ensure that the criminal proceedings went forward as swiftly as possible in view of the importance of the case for the applicant. Several periods of inactivity were attributable to the national authorities and the government had failed to provide any details of the alleged complexity of the case or to show how the complexity of the case could have justified the periods of inactivity found. Finally, the applicant was not to blame for any particular delay.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
Article 8 – a. As regards the period between the decision to defer the decision to suspend the decision on visiting rights and the judgment acquitting the applicant: the fact that the decision as to whether to grant visiting rights was deferred constituted an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family life. Pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings for the alleged rape of his daughter, the interest of the minor legitimated the suspension of the applicant's visiting rights. The interference was therefore necessary to protect the rights of another person until the outcome of the criminal proceedings. However, it was also in that same interest of the child to allow the parental bond to develop once again as soon as the measures no longer appeared necessary. However, unreasonable delays in the criminal proceedings had had a direct impact on the applicant's right to family life. In this case, owing to the shortcomings found by the Court in the conduct of the criminal proceedings, the national authorities had not taken all the necessary measures which they could reasonably have been required to take in order to restore the applicant's family life with his young child, in the interests of both those people.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
b. As regards the period from the date of the applicant's acquittal: at that date the interference with his right to respect for his family life was no longer necessary for the protection of his child's rights. In this respect, it was important whether, from the date of that decision, the civil court had acted sufficiently expeditiously to ensure that the proceedings would be processed swiftly in view of what was at stake for the applicant. No period of inactivity imputable to the internal authorities was found.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy