CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 28 February 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57752/21 X against Slovakia lodged on 26 November 2021 communicated on 7 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of proceedings concerning the applicant’s custody of her minor daughter, Y., and visiting rights. After the divorce of the applicant and Y.’s father in 2013, Y. was entrusted to the applicant’s care. In 2019 the applicant sought to limit the visiting rights of Y.’s father and to increase his child maintenance. The proceedings started on 19 August 2019 and are still pending before the court of first instance. By virtue of an interim measure dated 14 January 2020 the court temporarily entrusted Y. to the care and custody of the applicant’s mother and determined the applicant’s visiting rights. The final determination of Y.’s care and custody will be decided in the above-mentioned proceedings. The case raises issues under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the domestic proceedings concern custody and visiting rights of a minor child and are still ongoing before the first instance, has the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention been violated? In particular, have the domestic authorities been acting with special diligence as required by that provision in cases such as the present one (see Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, §§ 18 and 22, ECHR   1999-I, and E.O. and V.P. v. Slovakia , nos. 56193/00 and 57581/00, §   85, 27 April 2004)?   2.     Given the length of the proceedings during which the applicant has only had limited contact with her minor daughter, and the role inherently played by the passage of time, have the domestic authorities complied with their positive obligations to respect for the applicant’s family life under Article   8 of the Convention (see Ribić v. Croatia , no. 27148/12, § 92, 2   April 2015, with further references)?