Avenue de l'Europe
Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain 
| 2003
...Article 8 includes a right for parents to measures that will enable them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such measures...
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29th July 2003
María Iglesias Gil gave birth to a baby boy. The father was her former husband. Ms Iglesias Gil was given custody of the child, whilst the father was granted access. However, the father abducted the boy and took him to the United States.
Ms Iglesias Gil asked the courts to issue an international search and arrest warrant for the father, so that she could regain custody of her son. However, the courts refused to do so and closed the case.
Under international law, the United States authorities would have been obliged to help with the return of the child had they been asked. However, the Spanish authorities had failed to make the request. This breached Ms Iglesias Gil’s right to family life and the return of her child.
Spanish law was changed after the Strasbourg court agreed to review the case. Child abduction was classified as a more serious crime, so that courts can now issue international arrest warrants for people who take children away from their lawful parents.
The father in this case brought the child back to Spain from the USA for a visit. With police help, Ms Iglesias Gil managed to get her son back.
When she was four years old, Tabitha Mitunga was detained by the Belgian authorities for almost two months – without family, friends, or anybody assigned to look after her. She suffered psychological damage and the Strasbourg court ruled that her rights had been violated. Her case highlighted the need for better protections for unaccompanied children in Belgium and led to substantial reforms.
In February 1992, 25,671 people in Slovenia were automatically stripped of their right to live there. Many people – including Ana Mezga - had their papers taken away, were evicted from their homes, could not work, lost personal possessions or had their families broken apart. The law was changed and a compensation scheme set up after a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights.
Tiborné Daróczy was 71 years old when the government made her change the name - even though she she had used it for fifty years. Mrs Daróczy saw her name as a strong link to her late husband. She did not want to be forced to change it. The European court ruled in her favour and the Hungarian authorities then allowed Mrs Daróczy to keep her old name.
Horst Zaunegger had a daughter and separated from the child’s mother. German law limited his chances to obtain joint custody, because he and the mother had never been married. After he won his case in Strasbourg, the law was changed to give fathers such as Mr Zaunegger more rights.
Under Austrian law, custody of a child born out of marriage was automatically given to the mother, with few exceptions. Meanwhile, custody of children born within marriage was decided according to the child’s best interests. At the Strasbourg court, Mr Sporer successfully argued that this was unfair – leading to a change in Austrian law.
Verica Šobota-Gajić was given custody of her children after her relationship ended. However, her former husband took their son away. Due to the authorities’ inaction, Ms Šobota-Gajić only regained custody 6 years later. The case led to reforms to make sure the right people have custody of a child.
Nessa Williams-Johnston could not be legally recognised as her father’s daughter, because her father had previously been married to someone other than Nessa’s mother. After the Strasbourg court ruled in the family’s favour, new legislation was passed to give children in Nessa’s position proper legal status.
Snežana Boucke had a baby daughter out of marriage. The father was ordered to pay child support. The authorities failed to make sure the order was enforced, and the payments were not made for 13 years. The Strasbourg court ruled that this breached Ms Boucke’s right to have court rulings properly enforced. The case led to significant reforms to improve the enforcement of court orders.
A child was born outside of marriage. The mother asked the courts to establish who the father was. Due to legal delays and the father’s refusals to have a DNA test, the case lasted over 5 years. The Strasbourg court ruled that children’s rights were not properly protected. Laws were changed to help prevent the problem from happening again.
Mihai Ciubotaru is a writer and a professor. He wanted to have his ethnicity registered as Romanian. The authorities refused his request, despite his clear links with the Romanian ethnic group. The Strasbourg court ruled in Mr Ciubotaru’s favour, and later reforms gave people more control over their registered ethnicity.
Stefano Bianchi was given custody of his son when he separated from his wife. However, his wife took the child abroad and refused to return. When Mr Bianchi complained to the Swiss authorities, they failed to take action to reunite father and son. The Strasbourg court ruled that this breached Mr Bianchi’s right to family life. The relevant procedures were subsequently reformed.
Spain
Belgium
Slovenia
Hungary
Germany
Austria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ireland
Montenegro
Croatia
Republic of Moldova
Switzerland