THIRD SECTION
Application no. 20660/10
Dumitru CÂRSTOIU against Romania
lodged on 6 April 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dumitru Cârstoiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr Ioan Stoicana, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and his wife, A.A.C., had a child, A, born on 1 April 2005. In 2006 the couple divorced and the mother was granted custody of the child. The applicant was ordered to pay alimony and was granted the right to have personal relations with the child and contact rights, as follows: at the child’s home on Sundays from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and at the applicant’s home on the first and third Saturday of the month from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Relations between the parties continued to deteriorate, and A.A.C. opposed the father’s contact with the child and moved house several times without informing the applicant. It therefore became increasingly difficult for the applicant to see A. Consequently on 28 May 2008 he brought an action for custody of his child, asking, alternatively, for an extension of his contact rights. He pointed out that he had not seen his son for one and a half years, as his former wife and her family had forbidden any contact. The Bucharest District Court gave judgment on 5 November 2008. It noted that the relations between the parents had deteriorated and that the mother was obstructing any relation between the father and his son, being inflexible and omitting to communicate important information about the child to the applicant. It considered nevertheless that those aspects were not enough to warrant a change in the custody measures, in particular given the fact that the circumstances of the case remained unchanged from the date when the custody was first decided upon. For the same reason it dismissed the applicant’s request for modification of the visiting times. It ruled:
“Dismisses the plaintiff’s requests for modification of the right to personal relations with the child, namely to accommodate the minor in [the plaintiff’s] home.”
The applicant appealed, pointing out that not only did the court dismiss his claims but it also restricted his contact rights by no longer allowing him to take his son to his home.
On 14 May 2009 the Social Services and Child Protection Direction of the Bucharest local council (“the Child Protection Authority”), acting at the county court’s request, visited the applicant’s home, interviewed him and concluded that he was in terms of his psychological and material situation a fit and proper person to take care of his child.
On 25 May 2009 the Bucharest County Court upheld the previous judgment, on the ground that the best interests of the child required that he remain resident with his mother; it gave no answer to the applicant’s representation about the restriction on his contact rights.
The applicant appealed on points of law, and reiterated his complaints, but the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed them in a final decision of 11 November 2009.
According to the applicant, his subsequent attempts to see the child remained unsuccessful, as, encouraged by the previous decisions, the mother refused to allow him to enter her home or to take the child away with him.
The applicant brought a further action for custody. During the proceedings he requested by means of an urgent procedure a residence order in his favour, but on 7 October 2010 the Bucharest District Court dismissed his request, on the ground that a change in residence required serious consideration, which could not be undertaken in an expeditious procedure. The decision was upheld by the Bucharest County Court in a final decision of 27 January 2011.
The applicant and A.A.C. lodged several criminal complaints against each other, the applicant accusing his former wife of breaching his right to maintain personal relations with his child by not allowing him contact with his son, by denigrating him in front of the child and by repeatedly changing the child’s place of residence, while A.A.C. accused the applicant of provoking public scandal when trying to visit A. in her home and of keeping the child longer than allowed by the court order. They were both fined for their behaviour.
The applicant sought the assistance of the Child Protection Authority in finding the child’s address and in persuading the mother to comply with the court decisions granting him visiting rights. It appears that his attempts remained unsuccessful, as the mother refused to cooperate with the authorities.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic legal provisions are set out in Lafargue v. Romania, no. 37284/02, §§ 64-69, 13 July 2006, and Costreie v. Romania, no. 31703/05, §§ 55-58, 13 October 2009.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that by issuing and upholding the decision of 5 November 2008 the domestic courts limited his visiting rights and thus prohibited him from developing normal father-son relations with his child. He considers that this limitation was excessive, disproportionate and unwarranted and allowed his former wife to persist in her wrongful behaviour which was aimed at forbidding any relation between him and his child. He argues that the authorities’ passivity in his case allowed for the deterioration of his personal relations with his son, as he was incapable of maintaining contact with the child.
QUESTION
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, given the manner in which the Bucharest District Court restricted his contact rights in its decision of 5 November 2008 and the type of assistance provided by the authorities (courts and administrative entities) for the enforcement of the applicant’s contact rights?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy