Aron GANDRUD v Norway - 23109/07 [2009] ECHR 1635 (1 October 2009)

Aron GANDRUD v Norway - 23109/07 [2009] ECHR 1635 (1 October 2009)

The Court found that the Norwegian courts' decisions were based on relevant and sufficient reasons, carefully assessed the best interests of the children, and fell within the State's margin of appreciation. There was no indication that the authorities failed to strike a proper balance between the applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ECHR 1635
Parties
Applicant: Aron Gandrud; Respondent: Norway
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
01 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Parental Responsibility, Child Custody, Access Rights, Margin of Appreciation
Human Rights Law Family Law Article 8 ECHR Parental Responsibility Child Custody Access Rights Margin of Appreciation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aron Gandrud

Applicant

Norway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions of Norwegian courts regarding parental responsibilities, daily care, and access rights violated the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Norwegian courts' decisions were based on relevant and sufficient reasons, carefully assessed the best interests of the children, and fell within the State's margin of appreciation. There was no indication that the authorities failed to strike a proper balance between the applicant's interests and those of the children. The application was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible

Orders

  • Application is unanimously declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention