T.H. v. FINLANDCONCURRING OPINION BY MR. ROZAKIS,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: October 22, 1993

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: October 22, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. ROZAKIS,

JOINED BY MM. MARXER AND CABRAL BARRETO

(regarding Article 8 of the Convention)

While I agree with the majority of the Commission that there has

been a lack of respect for the applicant's family life leading to a

violation of Article 8 of the Convention, I am not entirely in

agreement with its analysis as to the factors constituting the elements

of lack of respect.

The Commission considers that the violation of Article 8 is due

only to the non-enforcement of the visiting rights of the applicant for

the period commencing from the ratification of the Convention by

Finland, as well as the non-enforcement of his custody rights from that

date up to the date of the transfer of the custody rights of the

applicant to R.N. and S.N.

In my opinion the violation also results from the judgment of

the Court of 25 September 1991 transferring the custody of the child

from the applicant to R.N. and S.N. This judgment affected negatively

the nature of family life of the applicant as had been constituted

throughout the years, it has contributed to a further weakening of the

ties of the father with his child, and has also unjustifiably

contributed to the legitimisation of an otherwise illegal, de facto

situation.

(Or. English)

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant