Published on 4 July 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 31942/21
J.D.
against Lithuania
lodged on 4 June 2021
communicated on 15 June 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant and his former wife have two underage children, P.K.D., born in 2007, and J.K.D., born in 2010. In 2014 the applicant and his wife divorced. Although under the court approved settlement agreement of March 2017 the children were to reside with their mother and the applicant had the right to communicate with them, there was much animosity between the parents and the mother obstructed the children’s contact with the applicant. In June 2017 she filed for increased child support payments. She also initiated criminal proceedings, asserting that the applicant had sexually molested their children, and in September 2017 the pre-trial investigator imposed a remand measure – the applicant was barred from communicating with his children and his former spouse pending the criminal proceedings. The applicant appealed against that measure as unjustified throughout the criminal proceedings, but to no avail.
The pre-trial investigation regarding the charges of sexual molestation was discontinued in July 2018, the prosecutor having established that no crime had been committed. The children’s psychological examination reports showed no proof that the applicant had sexually molested them. This conclusion was also based on the testimony that the two children gave to the pre-trial investigation judge and witness’ testimony.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor continued criminal proceedings on another charge – causing physical pain to an underaged person. The latter charge was dismissed by the final decision of 3 December 2020, when the Kaunas Regional Court held that the children’s testimony against the applicant had been swayed by their mother. Afterwards, the applicant’s contact with his children, at least until March 2021, remained nil, due to his former wife’s non-cooperation with the authorities’ and non-observance of their contact related decisions.
Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that during the criminal proceedings he had been restricted from communicating with his children for unjustifiably long period and without proper grounds, and that the State had failed to fulfil its positive obligations to respect the applicant’s right to family life. He submits, among other, that the State authorities did not seek less restrictive measures, especially once the criminal charges of sexual molestation had been dismissed, and that the State authorities did not prevent the children’s mother from obstructing the children’s communication with their father, even after the remand measures had been lifted. This was despite the applicant’s repeated appeals and requests for support lodged with the authorities, including the applicant’s pleas that the criminal proceedings had lasted unjustifiably long.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the fact that the applicant had been restricted from communicating with his children P.K.D. and J.K.D. throughout the criminal proceedings against the applicant and in their aftermath?
Have the courts and other authorities fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 8 and reached a fair balance of the interests involved (see Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, §§ 92, 93, 96-100, 29 April 2014; Manic v. Lithuania, no. 46600/11, §§ 99-104, 13 January 2015, and the case-law cited therein)?
2. The parties are requested to provide information about the latest developments regarding the applicant’s and his children’s situation, in particular, as concerns their contact following the applicant’s acquittal by the Kaunas Regional Court’s judgment of 3 December 2020.