Published on 10 January 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 13218/21
Bruno Miguel PACHECO CASTELO
against Portugal
lodged on 18 February 2021
communicated on 14 December 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s right to respect for his family life. The applicant and C. are separated and have a daughter, I., born in 2013. The applicant lives in France, whereas C. and I. live in Portugal with C.’s mother.
On 28 August 2017 the applicant lodged civil proceedings with the Porto District Court requesting custody of his daughter. On 14 February 2020 his request was granted. On 16 June 2020 the Porto Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 2 December 2020 the Supreme Court reversed the previous decisions. It placed I. in the care of C. and her maternal grandmother and granted the applicant contact rights.
Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Supreme Court did not consider the best interest of his daughter when placing her in the care of her mother and maternal grandmother. Furthermore, he submits that it should not have placed his daughter in the custody of her maternal grandmother, who had not requested custody of I.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the decision of the Supreme Court of 2 December 2020 refusing the applicant’s application for custody of his daughter disclose a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:
1. Were there “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the decision (see C. v. Finland, no. 18249/02, § 52, 9 May 2006; and Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 203, 10 September 2019)?
2. Has the Supreme Court secured a fair balance of the interests involved? Has the Supreme Court taken the applicant’s daughter’s best interest into account by deciding to place her in the care of C. and her maternal grandmother (see Santos Nunes v. Portugal, no. 61173/08, § 67, 22 May 2012; and Strand Lobben and Others, cited above § 204 )?
3. Did the decision-making process before the Supreme Court provide the applicant with the requisite protection of his interests? In particular, should the Supreme Court have held an oral hearing and/or heard further witnesses before it proceeded to overturn the decisions of the two lower courts (see C. v. Finland, no. 18249/02, §§ 56 and 58, 9 May 2006; and Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, § 101, 23 October 2018)?