Published on 24 June 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 71063/17
Hamidreza SHIRAZI
against Poland
lodged on 26 September 2017
communicated on 3 June 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s contact with his child.
In 2004 the applicant, a German national, married A.S., a Polish national with whom he had a child, born in 2005. In 2011 A.S. and the child went to live in Poland. In 2012 the applicant and A.S divorced. Both the German and the Polish courts granted custody over the child to A.S. The applicant was granted right of contact via Skype once a week for an hour and visiting rights once a month for two hours at A.S.’s house.
The applicant applied to the Polish court of first instance to have his contacts with his child extended to one weekend per month away from A.S.’s house. During the proceedings the court obtained two reports (from the Family Consultation Center (RODK) and from its own expert (a psychologist)). In their report, the RODK experts concluded that frequent and unhindered contacts with the applicant would be in the child’s best interest. The court expert concluded that it would be preferable not to extend the existing contact and to let the applicant improve his relationship with the child in a more spontaneous manner adapted to the child’s age.
On 7 June 2016 the court dismissed the application. Furthermore, it decided, of its own motion, to deny the applicant any contact with his child. On 25 January 2017 the second instance court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 30 March 2017.
The courts observed that under Article 113 para. 1 of the Family Code, a parent could be denied contact with his child only in exceptional circumstances, for instance in case of a serious threat to life and limb, security or well-being of a child. They noted that, even though the applicant had had regular contacts with his child, these had not led to improving of their relationship. They attached importance to the fact that the child was reluctant to see the applicant and did not want his visits to continue. They found that the applicant had not been involved enough in his child’s education and had failed to communicate with her in an age-appropriate manner. They considered that stopping contacts with the applicant would be in the child’s best interest.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to private and family life was violated when he was denied any contact with his child.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the denial of the applicant’s contact with his child compatible with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? (see, K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, 12 July 2001).