CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 5 July 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2303/19 Panagiotis KATSIKEROS against Greece lodged on 4 January 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restrictions on the applicant’s right of contact with his four-year-old daughter and the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant complains in particular that the contact schedule set by the domestic courts prevented him from developing a relationship with his daughter; that the additional grounds on points of law he lodged with the Court of Cassation were rejected on formalistic grounds; and that his appeal on points of law was not examined by an impartial tribunal. 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? In particular, did the contact schedule set by the domestic courts limit the applicant’s possibility to develop a relationship with his daughter: -     due to the short time they were allowed to spend together; and -     due to the fact that they were only allowed to meet in the mother’s residence and/or public places and only in the presence of the mother and a relative of her choice?   2.     Having regard to the rejection of the applicant’s additional grounds for annulment due to the fact that they were filed thirty days before the hearing, as required by domestic law, but the thirtieth day was a Sunday and therefore, was not taken into account, has the applicant been prevented from having access to a court in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant’s appeal on points of law been heard by an impartial tribunal in view of the participation of three judges who, in their capacity as members of the Plenary of the Court of Cassation, had previously refused to appoint the applicant to the Court of Appeal due to reasons related to the facts of the present case?