CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 octobre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2E819D4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Communicated on 15 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35481/20 Oleksandr Petrovych TERESHCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 5 August 2020 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Petrovych Tereshchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Kyiv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant had a relationship with B. and they started to live together. On 16   December 2016 their daughter was born. A couple of months later the applicant and B. separated. The child stayed with B. The applicant had regular contact with the child. On 26 December 2017 the applicant instituted civil proceedings, submitting that B. had prevented him from having contact with his daughter. He asked the court to establish arrangements for regular contact with his child, namely every Saturday and Sunday between 12 and 6 p.m. at the child’s place of residence, allowing walks outside between 2 and 4 p.m. without B.’s presence. The guardianship authority was admitted to the proceedings as a third party. Having assessed the case, it recommended allowing the applicant visits every Saturday and Sunday between 12 and 6 p.m., as requested. However, it considered that the meetings should take place in the presence of both parents. During the trial, B. submitted a psychologist’s report stating that the child suffered psychological pressure from the applicant. B. agreed with the contact schedule recommended by the guardianship authority. On 2 July 2019 the Pervomaysk Local Court of Mykolayiv Region ordered B. not to prevent the applicant from seeing the child. The court did not entirely endorse the recommendation of the guardianship authority and established the following contact schedule with a reduced periodicity: a meeting would be held every first and third Saturday and Sunday of the month between 12 and 6 p.m. allowing walks outside between 2 and 4 p.m. in the mother’s presence. The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to give any reasons for limiting the periodicity of the meetings. He submitted that the guardianship authority had recommended more meetings per month in its schedule which, moreover, had been accepted by the child’s mother. On 11 September 2019 the Mykolayiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that it had been in the child’s best interests to reduce the periodicity of meetings, as compared to the schedule recommended by the guardianship authority. On 8 April 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unfounded. Relevant domestic law Family Code, 10 January 2002 According to Article 19 of the Family Code, the guardianship authority must take part in court disputes concerning the participation of one of the parents in the upbringing of the child (§   4). The guardianship authority shall submit to the court an opinion on the settlement of the dispute on the basis of information obtained from the examination of the living conditions of the child and parents (or other persons wishing to participate in his/her upbringing), as well as other relevant documents (§   5). The court may disagree with the opinion of the guardianship authority if it is insufficiently substantiated or if it is contrary to the interests of the child (§   6). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 and Article 13 of the Convention that the courts failed to protect his right to have sufficient contact with his daughter.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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 domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions when determining the schedule of the applicant’s meetings with his child? How did the courts establish and evaluate the child’s best interests?