CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 octobre 2023

.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 } Published on 20 November 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26035/23 M.K. against Latvia lodged on 19 June 2023 communicated on 30 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns contact rights with a minor child and domestic proceedings instituted in that respect. The applicant lived together with another woman, E.G. In 2016 E.G. gave birth to a boy as a result of artificial insemination. After the birth of the child, the applicant continued living together in the same household with E.G. and the child, caring for him. However, in February 2022, the applicant and E.G. separated. According to the applicant, E.G. did not allow her to meet the child after that. On 17 February 2022 the applicant instituted domestic proceedings regarding contact rights with the child. Within these proceedings, the applicant twice applied for interim contact rights. Whereas she ultimately withdrew her first request because of her state of health, the domestic courts by a final decision of 5   April 2023 declined to deal with her second request. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the right to respect for her private life has been breached on account of the refusals to grant interim contact rights with the child with whom, therefore, she does not have any contact.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the manner in which the domestic courts handled the applicant’s requests for interim contact rights with the child and, in particular, the delay in the examination of her first request and the refusal to examine her second request?