CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 17 November 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56594/13 Olga NAGY against Romania lodged on 23 August 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Olga Nagy, is a German national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Borșa. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant and her husband have a child, B., born on 22 February 2005. Following the child’s birth, the family lived for two weeks with the applicant’s parents, I.Z. and M.Z. in the latter’s home in Oradea but then moved to the applicant’s in-laws as relations between the parties started to deteriorate. According to the applicant, her parents were criticising the methods by which the child was brought up. Four years later, the family moved in their new home in Borșa. Throughout this period I.Z. and M.Z. had sporadic contacts with B., visiting him on his birthday and once at his pre-school, once in a park and once when the child was in a hospital. I.Z. and M.Z. addressed the National Authority for Protection of Children’s Rights, the Ministry of Justice and the Bihor Child Protection Agency in order to find information about the child and the case was monitored for three months, consisting in organised meetings between all the parties involved, counselling of the parties, home visits and visits at the nursery school. On 15 December 2009, I.Z. and M.Z. initiated civil proceedings against the applicant and her husband, seeking contact rights in respect of their grandson. The parents opposed the claim alleging that the minor child did not have any attachment towards his grandparents and that they were unfit to take care of the child. The applicant described that when she was six years old and under her father’s supervision, she had fallen from the ninth floor of the building in which she lived with her parents. The parents argued that the grandparents did not agree with their parenting methods, trying for instance to force the child to eat more than what the parents considered necessary and against their express wishes. The parents explained that they did not prohibit the grandparents to see the child. On 10 February 2011 the Oradea District Court partially allowed the claim and granted I.Z. and M.Z. the right to take the child to their home every other Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., one week during summer holidays and four days between Christmas and New Year. The district court noted, inter alia , that the domestic legislation establishes contact rights between the child and his relatives and that those rights can be limited or even prohibited only in exceptional circumstances such as the endangering of the child’s physical, psychological, moral and intellectual development. It dismissed the argument that the grandparents were not fit to take care of the child, stating that the fall the applicant referred to was merely an unfortunate event. The domestic court acknowledged that the child did not have a close connection with his grandparents due to the tensed relations between the applicant and the grandparents. The applicant appealed against the judgment reiterating her arguments and on 2 June 2011 the Bihor Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. The applicant subsequently appealed on points of law against the judgment. During the appeal proceedings, with the parties’ consent, the minor child was heard by a psychologist working for the domestic court and a report was drawn recommending that the child should develop personal relations with the grandparents. The report indicated that the lack of contact between the child and his grandparents would represent a risk factor for his emotional and social development but it did not indicate the manner in which such relations should be developed. By a final judgment of 26   February 2013 the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It concluded that it was in the best interest of the child to develop personal relations with his grandparents. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant Romanian legal provisions, are described in the judgment in the case of Amanalachioai v. Romania , no. 4023/04, §§ 54 and 59, 26 May 2009. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the Convention that the contact rights established by the Romanian courts will disturb the child’s educative programme and will endanger his safety, in breach of the applicant’s right to respect for family life. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, given the manner in which the domestic courts established contact rights for the grandparents in respect of the applicant’s minor child?