Search
document

Document text Analytics

BOYLE v. the UNITED KINGDOMDISSENTING OPINION BY MM. FROWEIN, WEITZEL, DANELIUS AND MARTINEZ

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: February 9, 1993

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

BOYLE v. the UNITED KINGDOMDISSENTING OPINION BY MM. FROWEIN, WEITZEL, DANELIUS AND MARTINEZ

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: February 9, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION BY MM. FROWEIN, WEITZEL, DANELIUS AND MARTINEZ

The applicant complains of having been refused access to his

nephew and of having been unable to have the question of access

determined by a court.

We accept that "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of

the Convention may exist not only between parents and children but also

between more distant relatives such as uncle and nephew. However, the

requirements of Article 8 must, generally speaking, be considered to

be less far-reaching in regard to such family relationships.

Although there seems to have been a close emotional relationship

between the applicant and his nephew during the latter's early

childhood, we cannot find that the local authority acted in breach of

Article 8, when deciding, after the nephew had been placed with

foster-parents, no longer to grant the applicant access to him. We

note in this regard that, at least during part of the period concerned,

preparations were made for the nephew's adoption and that the nephew

himself wished to be adopted.

The European Court of Human Rights has pointed out that Article 8

of the Convention also has a procedural aspect: when a child is in

care, the parents shall be involved in the decision-making process to

a degree sufficient to provide them with the requisite protection of

their interests (Eur. Court judgments of 8 July 1987, W. v. the United

Kingdom, Series A no. 121, p. 29, para. 64; B. v. the United Kingdom,

Series A no. 121, p. 73, para. 64, and R. v. the United Kingdom,

Series A no. 121, p. 118, para. 68).

We consider, however, that these procedural rights protected by

Article 8 cannot be the same insofar as more distant relatives are

concerned. In this respect, the domestic authorities must have a wider

discretion, when deciding whether or to what extent it is appropriate

to involve such relatives in the decision-making process. In the

present case it appears that the local authority was in touch with the

applicant on 21 June 1989 to discuss the question of access with him.

Moreover, the county court judge found, on 27 February 1992, that the

applicant's nephew had declared that he did not wish to see the

applicant. Having regard to all these circumstances, we do not

consider that the local authority violated its obligations under

Article 8 or that the procedure as such, as applied in the present

case, was in breach of that Article.

For these reasons we conclude that Article 8 has not been

violated in the present case.

Appendix I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

________________________________________________________________

05.10.89 Introduction of the application

14.05.90 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

07.09.90 Commission's decision to invite the parties to submit

observations on the admissibility and merits

17.09.91 Government's observations

18.10.91 Commission's grant of legal aid

06.12.91 Applicant's reply

15.05.92 Commission's decision to declare the application

admissible

Examination of the merits

15.05.92 Commission's deliberations

03.7.92 Applicant's observations

04.7.92 Consideration of the state of proceedings

17.10.92 Consideration of the state of proceedings

16.12.92 Government's observations on the merits

09.02.93 Commission's deliberations on the merits, final votes

and adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant