Communicated on 12 June 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 7097/18
Andriy Volodymyrovych BONDAR
against Ukraine
lodged on 31 January 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andriy Volodymyrovych Bondar, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Kherson. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Aminova, a lawyer practising in Kherson.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2010 the applicant married V. On 12 June 2013 their daughter M. was born. On 15 July 2014 the couple divorced. On 16 January 2015 the court determined that the child should live with V., his mother.
The applicant instituted civil proceedings, claiming that V. prevented him from having access to the child. The applicant requested the court to establish arrangements for his regular contact with the child.
By the first-instance court’s judgment of 3 December 2015, as amended on 1 March 2016 by the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, V. was obliged not to prevent the applicant from meeting with the child and participating in her upbringing. The courts put in place the following contact arrangements: during the first two months the meetings of the applicant and the child should be held every Thursday for one hour in the presence of the child’s mother; during the third, fourth and fifth month such meetings should extend to two hours; subsequently, the two-hour meetings should take place each Sunday and Thursday and, moreover, they should take place the next day after New Year Day, Christmas, Easter, Independence Day and the child’s birthday. In determining the contact rights the courts relied on the statements of the parties and witnesses, psychological reports, medical records and written evidence.
On 7 September 2016 the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters quashed the judgment of 1 March 2016 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for a fresh consideration, finding that in determining the contact arrangements the Court of Appeal had not properly examined all the relevant circumstances, notably the daily schedule of the child, who had to attend a childcare centre for specific treatment.
On 26 October 2016 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, having assessed all the circumstances, decided that the applicant should be granted two-hour meetings with his daughter every Sunday in the presence of the child’s mother. That judgment was upheld by the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters on 22 June 2017.
On 16 February 2017 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 26 October 2016.
On 19 February 2017 the bailiff reported that on that day the meeting of the applicant with the child had not taken place because the child’s mother had refused to open the door.
Between March 2017 and January 2018 the applicant regularly informed the bailiffs that on numerous occasions the child’s mother had prevented him from meeting with the child as ordered by the court. In his letters the applicant unsuccessfully requested that relevant measures be taken to ensure enforcement of the judgment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to enforce the court decision of 26 October 2016 granting him contact rights with his minor daughter.
2. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce the contact rights court decision.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. With regard to the applicant’s allegations regarding non-enforcement of the court decision of 26 October 2016, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above-mentioned complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy