Arret
(Application no. 7198/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 July 2006
FINAL
11/12/2006
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
19. The Government submitted that the first applicant was not entitled to lodge the application on behalf of the second applicant, as he did not have custody of his daughter.
20. The first applicant contested the argument and recalled that he had lost custody of his child as a result of court proceedings that had contravened the Hague Convention and recalled that prior to the retention of the child, the two parents had had joint custody of their child. Neither of them had superior parental rights over their daughter.
21. The Court recalls that in principle a person who is not entitled under domestic law to represent another may nevertheless, in certain circumstances, act before the Court in the name of the other person. In particular, minors can apply to the Court even, or indeed especially, if they are represented by a parent who is in conflict with the authorities and criticises their decisions and conduct as not being consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In such cases, the standing as the natural parent suffices to afford him or her the necessary power to apply to the Court on the child’s behalf, too, in order to protect the child’s interests (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, Iglesias Gil et Urcera Iglesias v. Spain (dec.), no. 56673/00, 5 March 2002 and Sylvester v. Austria (dec.), nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98 (joined), 26 September 2002).
22. This principle applies in the present case, especially as the first applicant also contested the way in which the Romanian courts had decided on the custody rights, which, in his view, had violated his Article 8 rights.
23. In conclusion the Court finds that the first applicant has standing to act on his daughter’s behalf.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
24.