Doorbraakje bij het Europese hof voor de rechten van de mens ?

Door mythevorming over het Elzholzoordeel heeft ook op deze plek lange tijd verkeerde informatie gestaan. Hier eerst een fragment uit diskussie tussen de redaktie van deze site en Prof. Gardner hierover. Op deze mail antwoordde Gardner dat hij het punt zag.

Sorry that there might have been a misunderstanding. It is true, I know, that PAS is mentioned in the judgment as an argument the applicant Mr Elsholz made. And that is good, specially because the ECHR makes a kind of selection in describing Applicant's arguments. This all happened in paras 33,34 and 35, under the heading "Arguments before the court".

But as far as I can see it is not mentioned in the Court's own assessment of the case, starting at B1: para 43 "The Court's assessments".

So this means it cannot be quoted, imo, as an argument of the Court. The most fittable quote to PAS in the opinion of the Court (para 52) is:

"Moreover, taking into account the importance of the subject-matter, namely, the relations between a father and his child, the Regional Court should not have been satisfied, in the circumstances, by relying on the file and the written appeal submissions without having at its disposal psychological expert evidence in order to evaluate the child?s statements"

I discussed this matter with Julian Fitzgerald (UK) to be sure there is no language difficulty between us. He came to the same analysis after reading it again. Before, he, like you and like I ( before reading the judgement itself), had supposed it to be part of the Court's own opinion.

Meanwhile the oral hearing in my case is past and I am back home. We made some statements about PAS ( like the above-mentioned quote from Elsholz). Perhaps less professional than Mr Koeppel in the Elsholz-case. I have a legal-aid lawyer, so this in itself it is rather special, in that we got so far as to have an audience on my case.

I have no idea about the outcome. .........Joep Zander

---

In de zaak Elsholz tegen Duitsland heeft het Europese Hof voor de rechten van de mens een schadevergoeding toegewezen van 35.000 mark vanwege onvoldoende betrokkenheid bij en gebrek aan onderzoek.

---

home

colofon- tips & citaat- mail- links