CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 31 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 44870/19 Pallav AGARWAL against the Czech Republic lodged on 16 August 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns 1.     alleged violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life on account of the refusal of the courts to grant him either sole or alternating custody of his daughter (Article 8 of the Convention) and   2.     alleged violation of the applicant’s right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of his nationality on account of an allegedly discriminatory nature of reasons given for the refusal of the custody (Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the decision not to grant the applicant either sole or alternating custody of his daughter amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In view of all the circumstances, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life that encompasses a right to the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company (see Eriksson v. Sweden , 22 June 1989, § 58, Series   A no.   156)?   2.     Have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to act in a manner calculated to enable an existing family tie to develop (see Bergmann v. the Czech Republic , no.   8857/08, 27 October 2011; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, §   63, ECHR 2003 ‑ VIII; Neulinger and Shuruk v.   Switzerland [GC], no.   41615/07, § 140, ECHR 2010)?   3.     Having regard to the reasons given by the courts for refusal to grant the applicant custody of his daughter, has he suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on the grounds of his nationality, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention ? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in respect of the enjoyment of his right to respect for family life, namely in respect of custody of his daughter and his visitation rights? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?