CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 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 } Published on 25 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5541/22 L.B. against Slovakia lodged on 19 January 2022 communicated on 6 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s contact rights to his child (born   2013), the enforcement of interim measures and the length of the proceedings in this matter. The proceedings (no. 11P/6/2019 before the Nové Mesto nad Váhom District Court) were initiated by the child’s mother on 1   February 2019 and are still pending before the first-instance court. During the proceedings the court has issued several interim measures authorising the applicant to have regular contact with his child on the premises of the Centre for children and family (“Centre”). On 18 May 2021 the applicant lodged a request for the enforcement of one of these interim measures (that of 12   January 2021), since no meeting with his child had taken place due to the mother’s opposition, a fact that was recognised by the Centre. On 22   September 2021, the first instance court issued a request for voluntary compliance with the aforementioned interim measure. On 26 October 2021, the first-instance court issued another interim measure, once again authorising the applicant to see his child at the Centre, but this time without the mother’s presence. On 7 December 2021, the applicant sought enforcement of the latter interim measure, as no contact had been established between him and the child. Since the date of the lodging of his application (19   January 2022), the applicant has not been informed about any steps undertaken by the first instance court to enforce it. The applicant alleges having seen his child for the last time on 11 June 2020. 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 concerning contact rights to a minor child are still ongoing before the first instance court, 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 alleged complete absence of the applicant’s contact with his child since 11 June 2020 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 under Article 8 of the Convention (see Ribić v. Croatia , no. 27148/12, § 92, 2 April 2015, with further references).   In particular, having regard to the steps taken by the first instance court concerning the enforcement of the interim measures of 12 January and 26   October 2021 in correlation with the opposition of the child’s mother and the alternatives provided inter alia by Article 370 bis of the Code of Civil Non ‑ Contentious Procedure (“ Civilný mimosporový poriadok“ ), has the domestic court taken all appropriate measures to ensure the exercise of the applicant’s contact rights and to establish a meaningful relationship between him and his child ( Malec v. Poland , no. 28623/12, §§ 74-78, 28 June 2016, Giorgioni v. Italy , no. 43299/12, § 75, 15 September 2016)?