Published on 15 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 57225/22
George PANĂ
against Romania
lodged on 13 December 2022
communicated on 26 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to grant the applicant joint parental authority in respect of his son (A), born in 2014, and to establish a contact schedule between them. A is not an applicant before the Court. The applicant has lived and worked in the Czech Republic since 2015.
On 25 January 2019, in divorce and custody proceedings, the Bucharest District Court (“the District Court”) awarded the mother (X) sole parental authority for A and established his residence with her. No order was made concerning the applicant’s contact rights.
On 4 May 2021 the applicant lodged proceedings before the District Court seeking joint parental authority and the establishment of a weekly contact schedule in respect of A. He submitted that X had restricted access to A since 2020.
On 23 December 2021 the District Court dismissed the application. As regards parental authority, it found that the applicant had not demonstrated any new circumstances capable of justifying a change to the arrangements established in 2019. It further referred to an incident in 2020 during which the applicant had allegedly behaved aggressively towards X in A’s presence. As regards contact rights, the District Court found that, apart from the 2020 incident, there had been no significant difficulties in maintaining contact between the applicant and A. Referring to Article 401 § 1 of the Civil Code, it held that a court-ordered contact schedule was necessary only where the parents disagreed and considered that it was in the child’s best interests for contact to remain unrestricted.
The applicant appealed, arguing that a formal contact schedule was necessary in order to avoid a repetition of the difficulties he had encountered in 2018 and 2020. He contested the finding that such difficulties in arranging contact had occurred only once and submitted that the refusal to establish a contact schedule breached his right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention.
On 20 July 2022 (decision served on 20 September 2022) the Bucharest County Court (“the County Court”) dismissed the appeal and upheld the first‑instance decision for largely the same reasons. As regards the contact schedule, the County Court held that the applicant’s residence abroad constituted “a constant impediment” to granting the contact arrangements sought. It found that contact had to be exercised personally and could not be maintained through the applicant’s aunt, and that his trips to Romania were not sufficiently foreseeable to allow a concrete schedule to be established. Referring to the witness evidence, it noted that the applicant travelled to Romania only twice a year and that contact during the remainder of the year was maintained through his aunt. It concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated “consistency and perseverance” in his efforts to spend more time with the child, observing that he had not travelled to Romania more frequently, and that when he did, X had not opposed contact.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts’ refusal to grant him joint parental authority and to establish a contact schedule in respect of A had breached his right to respect for family life, in particular on account of X’s alleged refusal to allow him contact with the child.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, as a result of the domestic courts’ refusal to grant him joint parental authority and to establish a contact schedule in respect of his son (see, notably, Suur v. Estonia, no. 41736/18, §§ 71-75, 78 and 80-81, 20 October 2020)?
2. Was the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the impugned court decisions fair and afforded due respect to the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, Buchs v. Switzerland, no. 9929/12, § 53, 27 August 2014, and mutatis mutandis Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, §§ 101 and 112, 23 October 2018)?
In particular,
a) were the reasons adduced to justify the measures taken by the domestic courts “relevant and sufficient” (see, notably, Buchs, cited above, § 49, and mutatis mutandis Cristian Cătălin Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 6221/14, § 32, 4 September 2018)?
b) was the County Court’s finding that the applicant had not demonstrated “consistency and perseverance” in seeking to spend more time with his son a relevant consideration in the proceedings and/or was that finding arbitrary (see, notably, Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 177, 27 September 2011, and mutatis mutandis Babayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 57724/11, §§ 37 and 43-52, 30 January 2020)?
3. Having regard to the domestic law, did the domestic courts’ refusal to establish a contact schedule deprive the applicant of the right to contact with his son (compare with Suur, cited above, § 92)?
The parties are invited to inform the Court whether, following the adoption of the impugned decisions, the applicant has been able to see his son.