CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 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 29 May 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15437/19 Andreas SCHRADER against Austria lodged on 7 March 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of the proceedings relating to the applicant’s request for regular visiting rights in relation to his son L, born 2007, and L’s half-brother T, born 2009. He separated from their mother in 2010, but continued taking care of both children until 2013, when she limited his contact rights to L and prohibited contact to T. The Vienna Inner City District Court ( Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt ) on 4 August 2013 granted the applicant’s request for visiting rights regarding L, but dismissed his request in respect of T. The proceedings were terminated by decision of the Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters ( Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen ) of 18 October 2018 (served on 25 October 2018). The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that the proceedings, which lasted about five years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction, were unreasonably lengthy, and eventually led to his alienation from L and T. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     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?   In particular, was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Does the applicant’s relationship to his son’s half-brother T amount to “family life” under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life due to the length of the custody and visiting rights proceedings in relation to L and T, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?