CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mars 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 March 2019     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 3891/19 Marcel-Dan CÎNȚA against Romania lodged on 9 January 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restrictions on the applicant’s right of contact with his four-year-old daughter during the divorce and custody proceedings. The applicant alleged that his mental illness played a significant role in this restriction, even when there was no evidence before the courts that he would pose a threat to his daughter’s well-being. Moreover, this restriction did not allow him to maintain personal relationship with his daughter. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the contact schedule set by the Baia Mare District Court in decision no. 7995 of 4   September 2018 (upheld by the final decision no. 611 of 15   November 2018 of the Maramureş County Court), limit the applicant’s possibility to maintain and develop the relationship with his daughter:   -     due to the short time they were allowed to spend together: two hours on two evenings a week; -     due to the fact that they were only allowed to meet in public places and in the presence of the mother.   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his disability, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read together with Article   8 of the Convention, in the exercise of his right to maintain contact with his daughter during the divorce and custody proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , K. and T. v. Finland , no. 25702/94, §§ 154-155 and 165, 12   July 2001; Petrov and X v. Russia , no. 23608/16, §§   98-102, 23   October 2018; and S.S. v. Slovenia , no. 40938/16, § 84 in fine, 30   October 2018)?