22 November 2022 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Martin Kornel continued by stressing the importance of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights for family law. Although family law is very different in the countries the Erasmus students come from (Ireland, Ukraine, Italy, Hungary, Spain) and in the Czech Republic, the case law of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and national constitutional courts contributes to a new perception, interpretation and application of family law in the light of human rights and, last but not least, to the value enrichment and searching of European human rights standards, as well as to gradual harmonization of family law in Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Then the students from different countries started to read their papers (Ireland, Ukraine, Italy, Hungary, Spain and the Czech Republic) according to the programme (see the attached \u201cProgramme\u201d). Some students participated at the event although they had not sent their annotations in advance (see the attached \u201cMinute\u201d with all the names of the presenters and titles of presentation). Almost all the students prepared PowerPoint presentations (will be send by e-mail). Majority of the students did not agree with recording and sending the record anywhere as they presented for the first time in English. There was not huge discussion because the students concentrated on their own topics: the case law of the European court of Human Rights against their own \u201cmother\u201d countries. It was difficult for the others to react.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding the content of the papers, the following issues were discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Isabella Antonia Zepina presented the Case of A, B and C v Ireland. She explained that three applicants travelled from Ireland to get abortions abroad. They argued that the Constitution of Ireland (prohibiting abortion) hindered their right to private life and decisions concerning their family life. All 3 women had different reasons for wanting an abortion, including health, social and financial reasoning. The presentation provided information about the judgement’s influence on national law and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Iryna Osmirko presented the Case of Yakushev v. Ukraine. The applicant complained because of his unsuccessful challenge of paternity before national courts. The presentation provided information about the judgement’s influence on national law and practice, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Giorgia Gaiotti presented the Case Giorgioni vs Italy. The case concerned the measures taken by the Italian authorities to ensure that a father could fully exercise his contact rights in respect of his son. The presentation provided information about the judgement’s influence on national law and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Zsuzsanna Polacsek spoked about the Case N\u00e9meth Zolt\u00e1n v. Hungary and explained that a complainant complained that the authorities did not act despite their positive obligation in order to ensure regular contact with his son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Laura Pina Oest presented the Case Saleck Bardi s. Spain. Plaintiff’s daughter arrived in Spain from the Sahrawi refugee camps in Tindouf for a two-month stay, but her stay was extended for medical reasons. Sixteen months later, the plaintiff demanded the return of her daughter to the refugee camps in Tindouf. However, the Child Protection Service declared the child to be in a situation of distress and, in application of the emergency procedure, placed her under its guardianship and decided to place her in the observation and reception unit of a center for minors. the foster family had refused to hand the child over to the Administration for her return to her mother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Clara Godoy Caram\u00e9s presented the Case Haddad v. Spain. It was stressed that Spain was condemned for violating the applicant’s right to family life, Art. 8 ECHR. The applicant alleged that she had been deprived of contact with her daughter when she was placed with a foster family by the administrative authorities, without taking into account the new circumstances alleged. The ECtHR found that the adoption procedure had been initiated without a prior declaration of abandonment by the national courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tatiana Perez Hernandez presented the Case Omorefe v. Spain which is related to a mother who denounced Spain before the Court, in order to be allowed to see her son again, after the Provincial Court of Pamplona authorized the procedures to give the minor up for adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Julie Brustmannov\u00e1 presented the Case Wallov\u00e1 and Walla v. the Czech Republic. She stressed that the applicants complained that they had been separated from their five children, who had been placed in public care, because of the difficulties they had finding suitable accommodation for such a large family. The presentation was provided by information about the judgement’s influence on national law and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Magdal\u00e9na Dinu\u0161ov\u00e1 spoked about the Case of Vav\u0159i\u010dka and Others v. the Czech Republic connected with the<\/p>\n\n\n\n
compulsory childs vaccination. The presentation provided information about the judgement’s influence on national law and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tereza Vlkov\u00e1 spoked about the Case Dubsk\u00e1 and Krejzov\u00e1 v. the Czech Republic. The case was connected about home births with assistance of midwives and connected problems with registrations of children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vojt\u011bch Ertl spoked about the Case Bergmann v. the Czech Republic. He said that the applicant claimed a right to have physical contact with his child that he lost some time after a divorce from his wife. He insisted that the right to respect his family right had been violated by national authorities. The presentation provided information about the judgement’s influence on national law and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tereza Reme\u0161ov\u00e1 presented the Case of Novotn\u00fd v Czech Republic. She stresssed that there was no possibility of the father to overturn a court decision regarding the child\u00b4s paternity, even after obtaining new DNA evidence providing information about his no biological connection with the child. The presentation provided information about the judgement’s influence on national law and practice \u2013 there are new articles in the Procedure Code now thanks to the jurispudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After cca 2 hours of presentations there was a short break followed by the second part of the event. A short discussion was moderated by Martin Kornel who finally made concluding remarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There were technical problems with recording the presentation (no voices were recorded). After cca 30 minutes Martin Kornel had to ask the technicians for help. Because of a lack of time, we decided to swich for MS-Teams and record the presentations via personal PC. The records will be sent to the CEA. However, almost no presenters agreed with recording and publishing their presentations. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
22 November 2022 Martin Kornel continued by stressing the importance of the case law of the European Court of Human […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":11563,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":true,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}}},"hir-kategoriak":[207],"class_list":["post-11562","hir","type-hir","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","hir-kategoriak-esemeny-beszamolo"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n