CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2019

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 41736/18 Tarvo SUUR against Estonia lodged on 29 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged violation of the applicant´s right to respect for private and family life on account of the domestic courts’ decision to terminate the applicant’s joint custody over the child and to subject his contact with the child on condition of the mother’s prior consent. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular: –     have the domestic authorities taken all necessary steps that could be demanded to restore and save contact between the applicant and his child (see Moog v. Germany , nos. 23280/08 and 2334/10, § 53, 6 March 2017; K.B. and others v. Croatia , no 36216/13, §§ 142 – 144, 14 March 2017; Nitâ v. Romania , no. 30305/16, §§ 35 – 36, 3 July 2018)? –     was the transfer of custody of the child fully to the mother a proportionate measure in the circumstances of the case?