DENUNCIA ANTE LA CORTE EUROPEA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS

Lo siento por el retraso en contestar a este mensaje de Fernando, pero no he tenido tiempo de leer la sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos hasta ...hace unos minutos. Me he quedado francamente asombrado, porque, hasta donde llega mi conocimiento, es la primera vez que ese Tribunal se pronuncia sin ambages contra la alienación parental y contra la tolerancia mostrada por las instituciones hacia el progenitor alienador.

La descripción de los hechos es todo un documento sociológico, una excelente descripción del maltrato institucional o amparado por las instituciones.
Hay varias sentencias del TEDH en las que el demandante alega inducción del síndrome de alienación parental en el menor, pero ninguna en la que el Tribunal admita y ratifique tal alegación como hace aquí.

Creo que esta sentencia será un agarradero muy útil para los jueces rectos y un escollo incómodo para los torcidos. En Amnistia Infantil han traducido la sentencia al español, para quien quiera echarle un vistazo.

Saludos a todos
Javier Alvarez

Javier Alvarez

----- Original Message -----
From: Fernando Martinez
To: mandender ; sospapa-cc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: [sospapa-cc] [Fwd: Fw: Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos contra la R, Checa. Desprotección de la relacion paternoi filial.]
Un amigo (no el que firma) me ha mandado esta carta.
Supongo que también os gustará leerla.
Saludos
F. Martínez.

MAS CONDENAS CONTRA ESTADOS POR FALTA DE PROTECCION DE LA RELACION PATERNO-FILIAL EN SEPARACIONES Y DIVORCIOS, TRIBUNAL EUROPEO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS.


La Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, en un fallo ejemplar, condena al Estado de la República Checa.

En uno de sus principales considerandos manifiesta que las autoridades judiciales de dicho país no hicieron los suficiente para impedir la destrucción del vínculo entre un hombre y su hija.
Principalmente, la Corte manifiesta que se libró AL MERO TRANSCURSO DEL TIEMPO la resolución del conflicto, de forma tal que la reanudación del vínculo dañado fuera ya casi imposible.
El estado checo fue condenado a pagar 13.000 euros más otros 2.000 euros por costas.
Más allá de lo ínfimo de la cifra, es de destacar el concepto por el cual dicho estado es condenado.
Y dicho concepto, es el que vemos aplicado diariamente en los tribunales argentinos: la delegación en el tiempo, y fundamentalmente en los niños y niñas de la resolución de los conflictos que debieran ser resueltos por los jueces en el caso de tener el coraje necesario.

Diego Cecchini
Rosario-Argentina

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
439
20.7.2006
Press release issued by the Registrar
Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Romania and the Ukraine
Koudelka v. Czech Republic (no. 1633/05) Violation of Article 8
http://cmiskp. echr.coe. int/tkp197/ view.asp? item=9&portal=hbkm&actionfiltered=html&highlight=Koudelka% 20%7C%20v. %20%7C%20Czech% 20%7C%20Republic&sessionid=7998413&skin=hudoc-pr- en

The applicant, J­ Koudelka, is a Czech national who was born in 1957 and lives in Prague. In 1990 a daughter was born of his relationship with E.P. The couple separated the following year and custody of the child was granted to E.P.

In 1993 the applicant applied to the court to gain a right of access, alleging that E.P. was preventing him from seeing their daughter. The court-appointed experts did not observe any impediment to contacts between the applicant and his daughter but reported an antagonistic relationship between the parents and a negative attitude of the mother, whose cooperation was in their view essential for the enforcement of a right of access.

In a decision of 24 October 1995, which was upheld on appeal, the applicant was granted a right of supervised access: he was to have contact with his child every other Thursday afternoon in a welfare centre with the assistance of a specialised social worker.

That arrangement is still in force, although proceedings brought by E.P. to have it terminated are pending. The applicant has been trying to have his right of access enforced from the outset. The only attempt to establish contact was made in July 2002 at a specialised centre. On that occasion the experts found serious shortcomings in the upbringing of the child by E.P. and observed that contact between the applicant and his daughter would not be possible without prior therapy, as E.P. had been instilling a parental alienation syndrome in the child.

The applicant complained that the authorities had not made sufficient efforts to enforce his right of access in respect of his daughter, in spite of her mother's resistance. He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).
Even though it had been aware, from 1995, of E.P.'s obstruction to contact between the applicant and his daughter, the domestic court had for a long time done nothing more than address a formal warning to E.P. in 1996, and that measure had manifestly remained ineffective.

Subsequently, it was not until April 1999 and October 2000 that the court had imposed two fines on E.P., for about EUR 70 and EUR 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the reprehensible attitude of the mother, the Court considered that such a measure could not be regarded as sufficient or adequate.
In the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the non-enforcement of the applicant's right of access was mainly attributable to the manifest refusal of the mother, and then to that of the child under her mother's influence.

It found, however, that the Czech courts had not taken all the measures that could reasonably have been expected of them, in the very difficult dispute at issue, in order to secure E.P.'s compliance with the applicant's right of access, and that their action had not been sufficiently prompt or systematic. Moreover, in view of the psychologist' s conclusion in July 2002 that E.P. was not bringing the child up properly, it was legitimate to wonder whether the courts had been acting in the child's interest.

In the Court's view, the Czech courts had allowed this dispute to be settled by the mere passage of time, such that the resumption of relations between the applicant and his daughter no longer seemed possible. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.
It did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 13,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, together with EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 701 already received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid.

(The judgment is available only in French.)