CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 21 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17895/14 Jörg EVERS against Germany lodged on 25 February 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ decision to allow the custodian of an adult woman, who was mentally disabled, to prohibit any contact between her and the applicant. The applicant, who was previously in a relationship with the woman’s mother, had had sexual contact with the woman, whom he describes as his fiancée, resulting in her giving birth to a common son. Subsequently, the woman had been placed in a home for the disabled and their son taken to a foster family. The applicant complains under Article 8 and Article 6 of the Convention of the domestic courts’ decision authorising the prohibition of contact. He further complains that he unsuccessfully applied for the hearing of certain witnesses and experts and for access to the custodianship file ( Betreuungsakte ), that no public oral hearing was held and that reference was made in the impugned decisions to the content of the custody file and other evidence not known to him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2, in particular, considering that no public oral hearing was held, that the domestic courts referred to medical and other evidence as well as the content of the custody file which, despite his request was not fully disclosed to the applicant, and that the domestic courts did not state in their decisions why none of the witnesses and experts called by the applicant were heard?   2.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, in the light of the described procedure adopted by the domestic courts, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6   §   1 of the Convention?