Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

The CRC in Litigation Under the ECHR

The CRC and the ECHR: The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to the Implementation of Article 12 of the CRC

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Litigating the Rights of the Child

Abstract

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, is a uniquely successful system for enforcing human rights, but it contains few references to children’s rights. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights is a rich source of human rights, which, at the same time, has been interpreted in a way that advances children’s rights. This chapter aims to explore the contribution of the European Court’s jurisprudence in this area; in particular, it considers the use of article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to interpret the ECHR in the two areas of child access/custody and juvenile justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the work of the Children Programme (‘Building a Europe for and with Children’) at http://www.coe.int/children.

  2. 2.

    13/2002—Autism-Europe v. France, 41/2007–Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria.

  3. 3.

    14/2003—International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v. France concerning access to medical services and 47/2008—Defence for Children international (DCI) v. The Netherlands concerning the right to shelter and protection.

  4. 4.

    45/2007—INTERIGHTS v. Croatia.

  5. 5.

    17/2003—World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Greece, 18/2003—World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Ireland, 19/2003–World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Italy, 20/2003–World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Portugal, 21/2003—World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) v. Belgium. A further challenge in this area is currently pending before the Committee.

  6. 6.

    W v. UK, no. 9749/82, Series A, No. 120, 10 EHRR 95; McMichael v. UK, no. 16424/90, Series A no. 307-B, 20 EHRR 205, para. 87.

  7. 7.

    W v. UK, no. 9749/82, Series A, no. 120, 10 EHRR 95 para. 64.

  8. 8.

    Tyrer v. UK, A 26 (1978); 2 EHRR 1.

  9. 9.

    Article 8(2) provides that ‘[t]here shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right (to respect for family life) except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’.

  10. 10.

    See, for example, Maumousseau and Washington v. France, 6 December 2007, a case concerning child abduction. This is also relevant in cases of positive obligation under article 8(1). See Hokkanen v. Finland (1994) 19 EHRR 139 and above.

  11. 11.

    See, most controversially, Neulinger and Shuluk v. Switzerland no. 41615/07, Grand Chamber, 6 July 2010.

  12. 12.

    Article 12 provides as follows: ‘1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.’.

  13. 13.

    UN Committee (2009), para. 19. Emphasis added.

  14. 14.

    UN Committee (2009), para. 60.

  15. 15.

    Elsholz v. Germany, no. 25735/94, Reports 2000-VIII; Sahin v. Germany no. 30943/96; Sommerfeld v. Germany no. 31871/96 and Hoffmann v. Germany, no. 34045/96, judgments of 11 October 2001, (2003) 36 EHRR 565.

  16. 16.

    Sahin v. Germany no. 30943/96, judgment of 11 October 2001.

  17. 17.

    Paras. 45–48.

  18. 18.

    Para. 47.

  19. 19.

    Sahin v. Germany [GC] no. 30943/96, judgment of 8 July 2003, para. 67.

  20. 20.

    Para. 73.

  21. 21.

    Para. 74.

  22. 22.

    Para. 77.

  23. 23.

    However, the Court went on to find a violation of article 14 together with article 8, in respect of the discrimination against the unmarried father caused by the German civil code; at the time, the latter placed the divorced father in a more favourable position with respect to the right to contact. Ibid., para. 94.

  24. 24.

    Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, 8 July 2003.

  25. 25.

    Para. 43 in the Chamber judgment.

  26. 26.

    Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, 8 July 2003, para. 71.

  27. 27.

    Para. 72.

  28. 28.

    Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, ECHR 2000-VIII, para. 49.

  29. 29.

    Partly Dissenting Opinion of Mr Ress joined by Mr Pastor Ridruejo and Mr Türmen.

  30. 30.

    C v. Finland, no. 18249/02, 9 May 2006.

  31. 31.

    Para. 57.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    T v. UK, no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999 and V v. UK, no. 24888/94, 16 December 1999.

  35. 35.

    Stanford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A.

  36. 36.

    T v. UK, para. 83.

  37. 37.

    T v. UK, para. 84.

  38. 38.

    T v. UK, paras. 43–47. Also cited were the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (calling on the UK to reform its youth justice system and raise the age of criminal responsibility), the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation no. R (87) 2, and article 14(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires that in juvenile justice the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age, and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.

  39. 39.

    T v. UK, para. 74.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para. 75.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para. 88.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para. 89.

  43. 43.

    SC v. UK, no. 60958/00, 15 June 2004.

  44. 44.

    Para. 29.

  45. 45.

    Para. 29.

  46. 46.

    Para. 29.

  47. 47.

    Para. 30.

  48. 48.

    Para. 30.

  49. 49.

    UN Committee (2009), para. 60–61.

  50. 50.

    UN Committee (2007), para. 46.

References

  • Choudhry, S. (2009). Clashing rights and welfare: A return to a rights discourse in English family law. In M. Fineman (Ed.), What is right for children: The competing paradigms of religion and human rights. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhry, S., & Fenwick, H. (2005). Taking the rights of parents and children seriously: Confronting the welfare principle under the Human Rights Act. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 25(3), 453–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, B. (2010). Positive obligations and the European Court of Human Rights. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 61(3), 203–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaganas, F. (2013). A presumption that ‘involvement’ of both parents is best: Deciphering law’s messages. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 3, 270–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly, U. (1999). The child and the European Convention on Human Rights. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly, U. (2000). The Human Rights Act: Implications for the trial and detention of young people. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 51(3), 466–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly, U. (2001). The best of both worlds for children’s rights: Interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 308–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly, U. (2002). Effective protection of children’s rights in family cases: An international approach. Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 12(2), 336–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly, U. (2010). Protecting children’s rights under the ECHR: The role of positive obligations. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 61(3), 245–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkes, A. (2009). The right of the child to be heard in family law proceedings: Article 12 CRC. International Family Law, 238–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkes, A. (2013). Children and international human rights law: The right of the child to be heard. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raitt, F. E. (2004). Judicial discretion and methods of ascertaining the views of the child. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 16(2), 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalford, H. (2012). Children and the European Union: Rights, welfare and accountability. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2007) General Comment No. 10, Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice UN. Doc. CRC/C/GC/10.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009) General Comment No. 12, The Right of the Child to be Heard. UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/12.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2013) General Comment No. 14, The Right of the Child to have his/her Best Interests taken as a Primary Consideration. UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Ursula Kilkelly

Authors
  1. Ursula Kilkelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ursula Kilkelly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child Law, Leiden Law School, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Ton Liefaard

  2. Faculty of Law, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jaap E. Doek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kilkelly, U. (2015). The CRC in Litigation Under the ECHR. In: Liefaard, T., Doek, J. (eds) Litigating the Rights of the Child. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9445-9_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation