Published on 4 April 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 47925/17
Luís Miguel AGRA DOS SANTOS CALADO COSTA
against Portugal
lodged on 20 June 2017
communicated on 14 March 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns proceedings before the Family Court of Coimbra for parental responsibilities, custody, contact rights and child protection regarding C, the applicant’s daughter.
Under Articles 6, 8 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the domestic courts’ failure to halt the behaviour of C’s mother was in breach of his right to presumption of innocence and right to family life.
He also complains of the length and the unfairness of the proceedings. In particular, he objects to a psychologist’s interference in the judicial decisions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a breach of the State’s positive obligation of respect for the applicant’s family life, as required by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:
1. Have the domestic authorities failed to ensure the applicant’s regular contacts with his daughter, which were necessary to maintain family ties between them (see Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, §§ 69, 70 and 76-78, ECHR 2003‑VII; Gluhaković v. Croatia, no. 21188/09, §§ 54-59, 12 April 2011; Santos Nunes v. Portugal, no. 61173/08, §§ 66-68, 76 and 77, 22 May 2012; and Neves Caratão Pinto v. Portugal, no. 28443/19, § 135, 13 July 2021)?
2. Was the decision-making process fair and such as to ensure due respect for the various interests safeguarded by Article 8 of the Convention, in view of the weight given by the domestic courts to C’s mother claims and to the statements of the psychologist who intervened in the proceedings (see Maire v. Portugal, cited above, § 76; mutatis mutandis, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 31930/04, § 47, 5 July 2007; and Letinčić v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 51, 3 May 2016)?
3. Have the Portuguese authorities failed to examine the proceedings regarding parental responsibilities with the expediency that is required in cases concerning family life (Santos Nunes v. Portugal, cited above, § 69 and Neves Caratão Pinto v. Portugal, cited above, § 116)?