CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5C144E8F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 6 November 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12962/19 Rostyslav Stepanovych VYKHOVANOK against Ukraine lodged on 23 February 2019 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Rostyslav Stepanovych Vykhovanok, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Lviv. He is represented before the Court by Ms O. Karpel, a lawyer practising in Lviv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2007 the applicant started to live with I. in the city of Lviv. On 19   July 2008 their daughter D. was born. In 2011 the applicant and I. separated. I.   moved with the child to live in the town of Vynnyky, Lviv Region. The applicant instituted civil proceedings, claiming that I. prevented him from having access to the child. The applicant requested the court to establish arrangements for his regular contact with the child. On 20 February 2013 the Zaliznychnyy District Court of Lviv found that I. had prevented the applicant from seeing the child. The court ruled that the applicant should be granted (i) meetings with his daughter from 6 p.m. on Friday until 9 p.m. on Saturday every week at the applicant’s residence in Lviv; (ii) outdoor walks from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. every Wednesday; and   (iii)   fifteen-day holidays every summer and winter. The judgment was not appealed by the parties and became final. On 18 August 2014 the applicant requested the bailiffs to ensure enforcement of the contact arrangements. On 29 August 2014 the bailiffs initiated enforcement proceedings and found that I. had not prevented the applicant from seeing the child. On one occasion the child did not wish to stay with the applicant. On 14 October 2014 the bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings. On 28 November 2016, at the applicant’s request, the bailiffs reopened the enforcement proceedings. On 17 February 2017 the bailiffs found that the child did not wish to stay with the applicant during the meetings. On 17   May 2017 they terminated the enforcement proceedings. On 27 March 2019, following the applicant’s complaints, the bailiffs reopened the enforcement proceedings. On 18 July 2018 the Zaliznychnyy District Court of Lviv additionally found that the bailiffs’ decision of 17 May 2017 to terminate the enforcement proceedings had been groundless as the bailiffs had not taken all the measures in order to enforce the contact arrangements between the applicant and his daughter. The enforcement proceedings are pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to enforce the court decision of 20   February 2013 granting him contact rights with his minor daughter. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES With regard to the applicant’s allegations regarding non-enforcement of the court decision of 20 February 2013, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?