CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 2015

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 30 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 76251/11 Rasim ABUSHOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 21 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Rasim Abushov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Kurdamir, Azerbaijan. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 10 February 2000 the applicant married G. They had two children, a daughter born on 22 August 2001 and a son born on 26 April 2004. In 2007 the applicant and his wife separated. On 11 September 2009 the Kurdemir District Court adopted a divorce judgment, decided that children should stay with G. and ordered the applicant to pay alimony of 20 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for each child. The applicant’s son lives with his mother G. in her parents’ house in Kurdemir, while his daughter lives with G.’s grandmother in Bagman village of the Kurdemir region. The applicant lives in the Khirdapay village of the Kurdemir region, which is 35 to 40 km away from the Bagman village. G. refused the applicant to have contact with his children. Consequently, the applicant and his mother lodged a lawsuit against G., arguing that she was impeding their communication with the children and requesting the court to allow the applicant, his mother and their close relatives to have contact with the children. On 4 May 2010 the Kurdemir District Court granted the applicant’s claims and ordered the applicant’s, his mother’s and close relatives’ meeting with the children every Saturday and Sunday of the first, second and fourth weeks of each month. G. lodged an appeal from this judgment. She objected mainly to the children’s contacts with other relatives, in particular with their aunt. On 27   July 2010 the Court of Appeal partly granted her appeal and quashed the judgment in part allowing the close relatives’ communication with the children. The Court of Appeal also found necessary to establish certain hours for the applicant’s meeting with his children in order to minimize any future tension. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant and his mother to meet the children from 11:00 a.m. to 13:00 a.m. every Saturday and Sunday of the first, second and fourth weeks of each month. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He argued in his appeal that, taking into account the distance between the Bagman and Khirdapay villages, the two-hour time-limit for their meeting was inadequate and his right to contact with his children was ineffective. On 14 October 2011 the Supreme Court delivered a final decision dismissing the applicant’s cassation appeal without addressing or mentioning the above mentioned argument. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the national courts did not properly address his arguments against the restricted time schedule for meeting with his children. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the national courts’ restriction of his meeting with his children to two hours constitutes an unnecessary restriction to his right to respect for his family life and makes his right to contact with the children illusory, since he lives far away and the specified time would be mainly spent on the travel and he would not be able to spend quality time with his children.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was his right to receive a reasoned decision respected by the domestic courts, and in particular the Supreme Court?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?