CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2021

.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 } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Communicated on 8 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 25942/20 E.K. against Latvia lodged on 25 June 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the de facto non-enforcement of the ruling granting the applicant contact rights with his daughter. After their divorce, the parents shared parental responsibility. On 5   June 2018 the domestic courts awarded custody of the child to the mother, and the applicant was granted contact rights. Following the judgment, the mother brought the child to the indicated place; nonetheless, as soon as the daughter said that she did not want to go to the applicant, the mother took her away. The bailiff considered that this has amounted to the mother’s failure to comply with the judgment of the domestic courts. However, in their decisions of 20   December 2019 and 10   January 2020, the domestic courts found that the mother had complied with that judgment as she brought the child to the indicated place at the indicated time. Since then, each time the applicant is ordered to have contact with his daughter, the mother and daughter arrive in the indicated place and then immediately leave. The applicant has searched for assistance from the local Bāriņtiesa (a guardianship and curatorship institution established by the municipality), however, without any success. New custody proceedings have been initiated. The applicant complains under Article   8 of the Convention about the interference with his and his daughter’s family life. According to him, the authorities failed to properly respond to the mother’s opposition to the enforcement of his contact rights in order to maintain his relationship and enjoy contact rights with his daughter. QUESTION 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, in view of their positive obligations under Article   8, have the domestic authorities provided sufficient assistance to the applicant for an effective enforcement of the domestic court’s judgment granting him contact rights with his child?