CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22743/24 Michele URBANO against San Marino lodged on 29 July 2024 communicated on 18 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns separation proceedings which started on 4 April 2020. By 9 June 2020 an agreement had been reached between the parties on all separation and custody matters (joint custody and equally shared placement of the children) save for the issue of the maintenance of the two children. By an interlocutory decision of 14 January 2021, having determined that the applicant (the father) had a lower revenue than the mother (ratio of 2:3), the judge ordered him to pay 440 euros (EUR) monthly to the mother as children’s maintenance, and that the extraordinary expenses be shared. The applicant challenged this interlocutory decision, which was declared inadmissible by the appeals’ judge on 3 May 2022 on the basis that no appeal lay against an interlocutory decree which could be varied in the final judgment in the main proceedings. On 16 March 2023, one of the children having reached majority and become financially independent, the applicant asked the court to put into effect/acknowledge ( dare atto ) the new arrangements put in place between him and his adult son (i.e. that payment of 220 euros be given directly to the son and certain other expenses relating to the car and his studies be covered by the father). As of June 2023, the parties unsuccessfully tried to settle the remaining dispute amicably and the mother asked the court to increase maintenance in respect of both children. On 23 November 2023 the judge noted that the parties did not agree that the case be discontinued ( archiviazione ). On 14 December 2023 the mother declared that she was open to close the case on the conditions mentioned in the interlocutory decision of 14 January 2021. The applicant submitted that he was ready to agree to the discontinuance of the case once the current arrangement with the elder son was acknowledged and the decision of 14 January 2021 remaining applicable only in respect of the younger child. On 15 December 2023 the court discontinued the case (the main proceedings), thus the decision of 14 January 2021 became final. The applicant challenged the decision to discontinue the case noting that his agreement had been conditional. However, on 2 April 2024 the same court confirmed the discontinuation. It considered that any modification to the prior arrangements had to be requested via novel proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about the length of proceedings and the decision to discontinue the case, without examining his challenges, based on a novel interpretation requiring each challenge to be the subject of novel proceedings, thus causing further delays. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have effective access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the decision of 2 April 2024, which led to the applicant not having a final determination on his claims in so far as they concerned his request to put into effect/acknowledge the new arrangements, interfere with his right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §   86, 29 November 2016, and Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino , no.   40786/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts))   ?   2.     Alternatively, in the event that the applicant had an effective access to court in relation to his claim about the new arrangements, has the dispute been determined – in particular have new proceedings been lodged as instructed by the domestic court? and in that light was the length of the civil proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Frydlender v. France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII and Tierce v. San Marino , no.   69700/01, ECHR 2003 ‑ VII)?