JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES LORENZEN , TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA AND BORREGO BORREGO

While we agree with the majority that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, we are not able to find that there likewise has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s access right lasted some five years and eight months and the parallel proceedings relating to parental authority some four years and three months. Both set of proceedings were heard by three levels of jurisdiction. Whereas the Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court conducted the proceedings speedily, respectively within some five months and eight months, it took the District Court no less than four years and five months to decide the access case and a little more than three years to decide the case on parental authority.

Recalling that special diligence is needed in cases relating to civil status, not least cases like the present one where the time-element may be crucial for the outcome, such a lengthy period is only justified in special circumstances and provided not only that the proceedings were conducted without delays, but also that the procedural decisions taken served the best interests of the parties.

We admit that national courts may often be better placed in such cases to rule what is necessary in order to provide the best basis for the decisions to be taken, and we do not dispute that the District Court acted with the clear aim of improving the personal relationship between the applicant and her daughter in order to make access possible. However, when assessing the length of the proceedings it must not be overlooked that the applicant ’ s daughter had been placed in a foster family at the initial stage of the divorce proceedings and that this placement was originally planned only as a short-time measure. Furthermore we consider it important that the Court of Appeal did not agree with the way the proceedings had been conducted by the District Court, but stated that they “could and should have been conducted in a considerably more stringent way” (cf. § 55 of the judgment).

On this background it is our opinion that the proceedings were not terminated within a reasonable time and that accordingly there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.