CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 8 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15646/18 Vadim BÎZDÎGA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 20 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to family life as a result of his inability to have sufficient access to his child after divorce. The applicant alleges that the authorities decided on the visiting hours without consulting with him and gave him the right to see the child for a very short period (4 hours a week) and this is without the possibility to see his son outside the mother’s home. Moreover, the courts allowed delays in examining the applicant’s complaint against the schedule of visits in that the final decision was taken after the expiry of that schedule. The application also concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to examine a court action lodged by the applicant, in which he asked to be granted custody over the child as a result of his former wife’s failure to abide by the terms of the previous judgment and visiting schedule adopted. The courts considered this to be covered by the previous judgment and refused to examine the case. The application raises issues under Articles 6 § 1 (access to court) and 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case reveal a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular in respect of his right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis , Sultan v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 17047/07, §§   19 ‑ 26, 5 June 2018)?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to contact with his son unreasonably restricted (see, for instance, A.V. v. Slovenia , no. 878/13, §§   63-88, 9 April 2019)?