CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 19 September 2022       THIRD SECTION Application no. 48698/21 Akram SIOUD against Germany lodged on 28 September 2021 communicated on 1 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings about contact between the applicant and his child, a girl born in 2008. After hearing the child, the Family Court had ordered contact with the applicant. However, the Frankfurt Court of Appeal suspended the applicant’s visiting rights, without having heard the child, without having ordered an expert psychological opinion and without having examined in detail in its decision the content of the further reports at hand. Relying on Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the Court of Appeal’s decision amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life and to a fair hearing.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, has the decision-making process leading to the Court of Appeal’s decision sufficiently taken into account the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention ( Elsholz   v.   Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, §§ 52-53, ECHR 2000-VIII; see also Anayo v. Germany , no. 20578/07, §§ 65-66, 21 December 2010), in particular in view of the fact that the Court of Appeal did not: (i) hear the child; (ii) order an expert psychological opinion; or (iii) examine in detail the content of the further reports at hand?   2.     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 (see Elsholz   , cited above, §   66)?