CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 14 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20262/20 Andrzej ŚLEDŹ against Poland lodged on 8 May 2020 communicated on 27 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to obtain a ruling by the domestic court concerning contact with his adult disabled sister, A.O., who had sustained serious injuries in a car accident and who, even though is not incapacitated, is unable to express her will. Proceedings to declare A.O. incapacitated have been pending since 2015 and for the duration of the proceedings, A.O.’s husband has been appointed as her guardian. He opposes any contact between the applicant and A.O. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he has no access to court for the determination of his civil rights and under Article 8 of the Convention that the inability to obtain contact arrangement with his sister amounts to violation of his family rights.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the circumstances of the present case?   3.     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 (see, mutatis mutandis , Bierski v. Poland , no. 46342/19, 20 October 2022)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? Reference is made to the national courts’ findings that the applicant had no legitimate right to claim before the court a determination of contact with his adult sister.