Published on 18 October 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 20647/21
Karel KARAS
against the Czech Republic
lodged on 10 April 2021
communicated on 1 October 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application mainly concerns the right to respect for family life of the applicant who is the father of a child born in 2014.
By an interim measure issued in April 2017 the custody of the child was awarded to her mother and the applicant was granted visiting rights which were later further restricted. The proceedings on the merits resulted in a decision, based on several expert opinions, by which the applicant’s visiting rights were limited to three times an hour per year, with the assistance of a social worker, so as to prevent confrontational situations which were detrimental to the child’s mental development. The applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (II. ÚS 2574/20).
Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that evidence proposed by him was not admitted by the courts and that his family life is significantly disrupted since he is prevented from seeing his daughter and participating in her upbringing.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In view of all the circumstances, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, that encompasses a right to the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company?
2. In particular, have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to act in a manner calculated to enable an existing family tie to develop (see Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 63, ECHR 2003‑VIII)?
3. Has the restriction on contact between the applicant and his child been of such nature that the family relations between them were effectively curtailed (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 67, ECHR 2002-I)?
4. Has the decision-making process leading to the impugned decisions been fair, within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 of the Convention (see Kutzner, cited above, § 56)?