Search
document

Document text Analytics

JOHANSEN v. NORWAYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: January 17, 1995

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

JOHANSEN v. NORWAYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: January 17, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

I find myself in disagreement with the majority of the Commission

in this case in so far as it finds a violation of Article 8 of the

Convention in respect of the decision to deprive the applicant of her

parental rights and access.

I believe that the majority's conclusion in this respect was

unduly and unjustifiably influenced by the fact that it took the

national authorities, and in particular the Oslo City Court, some

months to determine the applicant's claims.

I am of the view that the time spent by the competent authorities

in order to reach their final conclusions on the relevant dispute was

in the circumstances of the case reasonable and that, therefore, to the

extent that such time contributed to the factor of lack of contact

between the applicant and her daughter, this was inevitable.

National authorities, including in particular the courts, must

be allowed sufficient time to consider carefully the material placed

before them and reflect cautiously on the various issues. There is a

limit in the speed with which such a task should be expected to be

carried out if the administration of justice is to satisfy the

essential requirement of quality alongside with the avoidance of undue

delay. It would be unrealistic to demand quick decisions which in

theory may be necessary but in practice impossible to obtain due to the

need for a proper consideration of all the relevant material and

aspects of the questions at issue.

Interim measures such as those requested by the applicant were,

in view of the nature of the matters in dispute, interlinked with the

merits of the case which the national courts had to determine finally;

and this was done within a reasonable time.

Furthermore, I believe that the courts have properly weighed the

interests of the applicant against those of her child.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

10 October 1990 Introduction of application

31 October 1990 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

14 October 1992 Commission's decision to communicate the

case to the respondent Government and to

invite the parties to submit observations

on admissibility and merits

26 January 1993 Government's observations

17 and 26 March 1993 Applicant's observations in reply

13 October 1993 Commission's decision to declare the case

admissible

Examination of the merits

25 October 1993 Decision on admissibility transmitted to

parties. Invitation to parties to submit

further observations on the merits

21 February 1994 Government's observations

9 March 1994 Commission's consideration of state of

proceedings

13 April 1994 Commission's consideration of state of

proceedings

20 April 1994 Applicant's observations

6 September 1994 Commission's consideration of state of

proceedings

11 January 1995 Commission's deliberations on the merits

and final vote

17 January 1995 Adoption of Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant