Bulgaria (2008), European Court of Human Rights

Bulgaria (2008), European Court of Human Rights

Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria
Application no. 71127/01 (Sect. 5) (Eng)

The appellant-wife was subject to domestic violence at the hands of her husband, and filed for divorce and custody of their child. However, authorities were slow in processing the case, and the woman and her son lived in constant fear of harassment by the husband over the course of the proceedings. The Court found that Bulgaria violated Article 8 of the ECHR.

“The Court observes that because of its very nature and purpose, an application for interim custody measures must normally be treated with a certain degree of priority…the cumulative effects of the District Court’s failure to adopt interim custody measures without delay in a situation which affected adversely the applicants...and the lack of sufficient measures by the authorities during the same period in reaction to Mr N.’s behaviour amounted to a failure to assist the applicants contrary to the State positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to secure respect for their private and family life.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)

United Kingdom (2007), European Court of Human Rights

United Kingdom (2007), European Court of Human Rights

C. v. the United Kingdom
Application no. 45773/99 (Sect. 4) (Eng)

In this case, the appellant-mother had had her children removed from her care. The children were taken away while they were with their mother at an emergency shelter facility, following a domestic violence incident. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under the Human Rights Act 1998 seeking the children's return home.

“The High Court judge ruled on outstanding applications. The orders freeing for adoption were revoked by consent and an interim care order was made in favor of the local authority with a care plan reuniting the applicant and the children.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)

Bosnia & Herzegovina (2007), European Court of Human Rights

Bosnia & Herzegovina (2007), European Court of Human Rights

Šobota-Gajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Application no. 27966/06 (Sect. 4) (Eng)

Despite having several rulings in her favour, national authorities failed to facilitate the applicant’s reunion with her son. Thus, she alleged that the State violated Article 8 of the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

“In this context, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) includes a right for parents to have measures taken that will permit them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action… the Court also reiterates that, in a case like the present one, the adequacy of a measure is to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between the children and the parent who does not live with them.”(Quoted form Original Judgment)

United Kingdom (2005), England and Wales Court of Appeal

United Kingdom (2005), England and Wales Court of Appeal

H (A Child)
[2005] EWCA Civ 1404

In this case, an appeal was allowed after a mother contested an order for contact made between her child and the child's father. The Court determined that the previous judge had failed to consider the attitude of the father, and the effect that contact would have on the mother and child.

“The Guidelines make it clear that in every case in which domestic violence is put forward as a reason for refusing or limiting contact the court should at the earliest opportunity consider the allegations made (and any answer to them) and decide whether the nature and effect of the violence alleged by the complainant (or admitted by the respondent) is such as to make it likely that the order of the court for contact will be affected if the allegations are proved.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)