CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 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 } .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 } Published on 26 April 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36319/19 Nektarios KOULIZAKIS against Sweden lodged on 2 July 2019 communicated on 8 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns custody rights and the applicant’s access to his son (born in 2009). The applicant is Greek, and the mother of his son is Swedish. The family lived together in Greece until 2012 when they decided that the mother and the son should move to Sweden. In 2014 the mother accused the applicant of violent behaviour and an investigation was initiated by the Swedish Social Services. The initiation of the investigation was not communicated to the applicant. In May 2015 the son told his kindergarten staff about his father being violent against him and his mother during a visit to Greece. Following this, the Social Services started the second round of investigations. During this set of investigations, the applicant was heard over the phone and the investigation was communicated to both the father and the mother by post. In 2016 the mother contacted the Social Services again – while visiting the applicant in Greece – as they had allegedly again been subject to violent behaviour by the applicant. The Social Services opened a third and final investigation, leading to the son and the mother getting protected identities upon return to Sweden. The applicant was informed about the 2016 investigation and he was heard about the accusations against him only after the investigation was finalised. In 2017 the applicant and the mother initiated custody proceedings. On 3   October 2018 the District Court decided that the mother should have sole custody, that the son should continue to have his home primarily with her and that the applicant should have no access to either of them. On 14 November 2018 the Ombudsman criticised the social authorities that had been responsible for the investigations by the Social Services. The Ombudsman’s evaluation mainly concerned the final set of investigation in 2016. The applicant appealed against the decision of the District Court, referring to the statement by the Ombudsman but leave to appeal was refused both by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The final decision was taken on 17 January 2019. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was deprived access to a fair trial as he was not involved in the investigations that led to him loosing custody of his son. The applicant further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that no in-depth examination of the entire family situation was conducted and that, thereby, the best interest of the son was not properly considered. Moreover, the decision to not grant him any access to his son was in violation of his right to family life under the said Article. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant properly involved in the investigations that led to him loosing custody of his son?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in particular vis-à-vis the decision to not grant him any access to his son? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?