CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2024

.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 } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 48076/22 Piotr Dariusz BUDYŚ against Poland lodged on 30 September 2022 communicated on 5 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the enforcement of the applicant’s contact rights with his minor child who lives with the applicant’s ex-wife. The contact arrangements between the applicant and his son (born in 2009) have been based on the Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court’s decisions of: 27 May 2013 (case no. III Nsm 52/13); 20 September 2016 (case   no.   III   C   767/13); 29 September 2017 (case no. VI Aca 2060/16); 5   December 2018 (case no. Nsm 258/18; appeal dismissed on 7 August 2019); 18 March 2019 (case no. III Nsm 258/18; amended on 13 November 2019 and on 2   December 2021). Pursuant to the last decision, failure by the child’s mother (M.B.) to comply with the contact schedule was under pain of paying the applicant 200   Polish zlotys (PLN, approximately 50 euros (EUR)) for each meeting that did not effectively take place. As established by the domestic courts and as submitted by the applicant, since 2014, M.B. had been consistently hindering the applicant’s contact with his son. It was also established, by the court ‑ appointed experts, that the applicant’s son had become estranged from him and was unwilling to meet with the applicant. The applicant sought payment from M.B. for hindering his contact with his son (actions lodged on 4 February 2014, 22 April 2015 and 5   June 2019). The Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court issued the following decisions in this context: (i) On 18 September 2014 M.B. was warned that she would have to pay PLN 50 (approximately EUR 12) for each meeting that did not effectively take place (case no. III Nsm 52/13; interlocutory appeal dismissed on 21   January 2015); (ii) On 27 October 2016 M.B. was ordered to pay the applicant PLN 6,500 (approximately EUR 1,625) for having hindered over 100 meetings between October 2014 and September 2016 (case no. Nsm 38/14; interlocutory appeal dismissed on 22 March 2017); (iii) On 22 July 2021 M.B. was ordered to pay the applicant PLN 6,400 (approximately EUR 1,600) for hindering 32 such meetings in the period from March to December 2019 (case no. Nsm 224/19). On several occasions, the applicant also sought, to no avail, to have his son’s residence changed so that the child could live with him. The following documents were issued in the course of last such proceedings: (i) a report dated 28 January 2020 in which expert psychologists recommended that the applicant and his son should regularly meet, so that they could rebuild the emotional bond between them; (ii) the District Court’s decision of 22 July 2021 dismissing the applicant’s last action regarding the child’s residence; (iii) the Regional Court’s decision of 2 June 2022 ordering M.B. to complete a parental skills training (case no. IV Ca 2300/21). The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that the authorities failed to effectively ensure the enforcement of his contact rights. In particular, the applicant complains that all the instruments that he has used were ineffective, and that the domestic proceedings were unreasonably long and unfair. 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, have the measures taken by the domestic authorities to facilitate the applicant’s contact rights with his child been adequate and implemented in a timely manner (see Boisteau v. Poland , no. 19561/22, 27 June 2024; Beluch v.   Poland , no.   4065/21, 28 September 2023; and J.N. v. Poland , no.   10390/15, 10   November 2022)?