CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29617/07 Péro VOJNITY against Hungary lodged on 9 July 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Péro Vojnity, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Szeged. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 8 June 2000 the applicant, an adherent of the religious sect Hit   Gyülekezete (Congregation of the Faith), divorced from his wife, and their son, born in 1994, was placed with the mother, while the applicant’s access rights were regulated. The applicant’s motions to reclaim custody and have his access rights re-regulated were unsuccessful. On 11 January 2006 the Szeged Guardianship Authority filed an action to have the child placed with his older brother, the mother having been considered unfit. In respect of a potential placement with the applicant, the Authority had regard to its observations that his heavy-handed proselytism vis-à-vis the son and his inadequate housing conditions represented a danger for the boy. The Szeged District Court appointed an expert psychologist. In his opinion of 5 September 2006 the expert found, having examined the applicant, the mother, their son and his older brother, that the boy had strong emotional ties to his siblings and his mother but none to his father. The applicant held unrealistic educational ideas hallmarked by religious fanaticism which rendered him unfit to provide the son with a normal upbringing. Indeed, he forced his beliefs on his son to an extent that it resulted in the latter’s alienation from him. On 12 September 2006 the District Court placed the child with his brother, but maintained the applicant’s access rights. Subsequently the brother filed an action against the applicant seeking deprivation of his access rights. The District Court appointed an expert psychologist. In his opinion of 14   September 2007 the expert submitted, after examining the brother and the son – but not the applicant, who refused to co-operate –, that the applicant’s participation in the boy’s life was harmful, notably because of his insistence on proselytism. He was of the view that the applicant was unfit to contribute to the son’s normal development and that the applicant should be subjected to examination by an expert psychiatrist. He suggested that the applicant’s access rights should be removed altogether, because his visits – which went beyond the authorised occasions – were of a vexatious nature and harmful for the child. The District Court then gave judgment and removed the applicant’s access rights. Relying essentially on the expert’s opinion, it held that his vexatious and harmful appearances in his son’s life amounted to an abuse of his access rights and seriously endangered the child’s development and upbringing. On appeal, on 4 February 2008 the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. It held that even considering the acknowledged and mutual interest of the child and his father in maintaining a family tie based on affection, this consideration was not applicable in the case, since the applicant abused his rights to influence the child in pursuit of his own religious beliefs, which triggered anxiety and fear in the boy and endangered his development. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that the compete withdrawal of his access rights amounted to an unjustified and disproportionate interference with his right to respect for family life. He invokes Articles 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.     QUESTION   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, read alone and in the light of Articles 9 and 14?