CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2019

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sED4A036D { width:99.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 3 May 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54032/18 T.C. against Italy lodged on 12 November 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In the context of child custody proceedings, the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, was prohibited from actively involving the daughter in his religious practice. He complains of a violation of his right to respect for his family life and his freedom of religion, alleging a disproportionate and unnecessary difference in treatment between him and his spouse, based on his religious beliefs. Finally, he complains that the overall length of the proceedings adversely affected his relationship with his daughter.     QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (see mutatis mutandis, Vojnity v. Hungary , no.   29617/07, §38, 12 February 2013?   2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, under the procedural limb of Article 8, having regard to the alleged lack of diligence of the domestic authorities in handling the proceedings (see Macready v. the Czech Republic , nos. 4824/06 and 15512/08, §41, 22 April 2010, and mutatis mutandis, Improta v. Italy , no.   66396/14, §54, 4 May 2017)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, either read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?   4. Has the applicant enjoyed equality of rights and responsibilities of a private law character with his spouse, as required by Article 5 of Protocol no. 7? If not, was the difference in treatment between the applicant and his spouse necessary in the interests of their daughter, as referred to in the last sentence of Article 5 of Protocol no. 7?