Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural Person
Country Germany
Decision no. 2699/65
Date 01/04/1968
Institution Decision
Type Commission (Plenary)
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Manifestly Ill-founded; health and morals & rights and freedoms of others; ratione materiae;
Type of privacy Family Privacy; Procedural Privacy
Keywords Custody; margin of appreciation; eductation; nationality;
Facts of the case Man divorces from wife; custody awarded to ex-wife.
Analysis Interesting case for a number of reasons.

1. The Commission again refers to both the ground of ‘health and morals’ and ‘the rights and freedoms of others’, while initially it referred only to the former and later referred to both, but focussed on the former in its analysis.
2. The Commission stresses ‘that the family life of the parents with their children does not cease owing to the divorce of the parents.’
3. The Commission again reiterates that there is a ‘considerable measure of discretion’ in decisions concerning custody, while it only grants a ‘certain margin of appreciation’ with respect to the right to have access to/visit the child.
4. It underlines that ‘with regard to divorce and other cases where the communal life of the parents is interrupted, it is legitimate, or even necessary, for the national law to provide rules governing the relationship between parents and children which differ from the rules which are applicable when the family unit is still maintained’.
5. The Commission also refers to the fairness of the legal proceedings under the header of the right to privacy when it stresses that ‘it is clear that the courts have in a series of proceedings taken full account of the situation of each parent in relation to the general wellbeing of the child; whereas there is no indication that the courts, in reaching their various findings, have interfered with the Applicant’s family life in a manner which is not permitted under paragraph (2) (Art. 8-2);’
6. With respect to the complain that the child is not educated in the applicants language and culture, the Commission observes rather strictly that ‘the right of education is an integral part of the custody which has been entrusted to the mother and the Applicant therefore no longer has a right to determine the manner in which that education is carried out;’
7. It stresses that under the Convention, there is no right to the recognition of a particular nationality
8. Moreover, Poland is not a Convention party.

Documents Decision