CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 2023

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9C3E97BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 17 July 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14318/23 A against Latvia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 27 June 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the contact rights with a minor child and the domestic proceedings in that respect.   The first applicant (application no.   14318/23) lived together with another woman, Y. It appears that the first applicant, Y and the second applicant (application no. 14329/23) had an informal agreement that they would conceive a child. An egg was removed from the first applicant and fertilised with a sperm of the second applicant. The fertilised egg was frozen. It was subsequently transferred to the womb of Y, who carried the baby to term. In the relevant domestic register Y was registered as the child’s mother and the second applicant – as the child’s father. The third applicant is the child, born in 2016 (application no. 14289/23).   After the birth of the child, the first applicant lived together in the same household with Y and the child, and cared for the child. The second applicant visited them daily.   Subsequently, Y left the household and took the child with her. The first and second applicants instituted domestic proceedings. By a final decision of 30   November 2022, the domestic courts dismissed the first applicant’s claim against Y as regards recognition of maternity and contact rights with the child. By the same decision, the domestic courts partly upheld the second applicant’s claim as regards contact rights with the child.   The first and second applicants rely on Article 8 of the Convention to allege that the right to have respect for their family life has been breached on account of refusing to grant contact rights with the child as regards the first applicant and on account of reducing the scope of contact rights with the child as regards the second applicant. They allege that the domestic courts did not hear the child’s views, did not take into account the child’s best interests, and did not exercise special diligence. They also rely on Article 14 of the Convention and allege discrimination.   The third applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention to allege that the right to have respect for her private and family life has been breached on account of limited contacts with the first and second applicants, that in the domestic proceedings her views were not heard, her best interests as a child were not taken into account and her ties with the first and second applicants was not taken into account.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions regarding the first applicant (application no.   14318/23)   1.1.     Has there been a violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the fact that she was not granted any contact rights with the child?   1.2.     Has there been a violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, as regards the conduct of proceedings?   2.1.     Has the first applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of “other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.2.     In particular, has the first applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with Y and/or the second applicant?   2.3.     If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   Questions regarding the second applicant (application no.   14329/23)   3.1.     Has there been a violation of the second applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the fact that his contact rights with the child were only granted partially?   3.2.     Has there been a violation of the second applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, as regards the conduct of proceedings?   4.1.     Has the second applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of “sex”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   4.2.     In particular, has the second applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with Y?   4.3.     If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   Questions regarding the third applicant (application no.   14289/23) 5.1. Is there a conflict of interests between the first applicant, who has brought an application on behalf of the third applicant, and the third applicant   (see T.A. and Others v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   25450/20, § 33, 30   November 2021)? If so, is there a need to make special arrangements to ensure proper representation of the child’s interests in the proceedings before the Court (see A and B v. Croatia , no. 7144/15, 20 June 2019)? 5.2.     Does the first applicant have standing in the present case to act on behalf of the third applicant (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no.   37283/13, §§   157-58, 10 September 2019; and A.M. and Others v. Russia , no.   47220/19, § 43, 6   July 2021)?   5.3.     Has there been a violation of the third applicant’s right to respect for her family and/or private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?       APPENDIX List of the applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on 1. 14318/23 A v. Latvia 28/03/2023 2. 14329/23 B v. Latvia 28/03/2023 3. 14289/23 X v. Latvia 28/03/2023