CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 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 } .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 28 August 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15956/23 David KYRIAN against the Czech Republic lodged on 6 April 2023 communicated on 5 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ decision, under Article 927 of the Czech Civil Code, not to determine the applicant’s contact rights with his son, to whom he is not the legal father, and to refuse to provide him with information about the child’s development (Article 8 of the Convention). The applicant’s son was born in 2013 of the applicant’s relationship with the mother, who was married to another man at the time. By reason of legal presumption, the latter became the child’s legal father and had cared for him until his divorce from the mother in 2022; currently, the child is entrusted into the joint custody of his legal parents. Since 2016 the applicant had had his contact rights with his son determined by the courts which, acknowledging that he was the child’s biological father, had then applied Article 887 under which the parents have the right to personal contact with the child. Following the legal parents’ request, made in 2018, that contact between the child and the applicant be prohibited, the courts ruled in 2020 that that contact should remain undetermined. Noting that the conflict between the legal parents and the applicant had exacerbated, which became too much of a burden on the child to bear and led him to develop a negative attitude towards the applicant, the courts considered that it was necessary to calm the situation down to enable the child’s mental state to stabilise. In 2022 the courts dismissed the applicant’s request for contact rights with the child and for information on the latter’s development. Referring to the conditions to which Article 927 of the Civil Code subjected granting contact rights to persons socially close to the child, and noting that the child’s mental state and attitude towards the applicant had not changed, the courts considered that it would not be in the child’s interests to have the contact with the applicant determined. As to the right to information about the child’s education and state of health, the courts observed that, since the applicant was not the holder of parental responsibility, such a right could be granted to him only within the framework of contact rights under Article   927 of the Civil Code. In the case at hand, given the child’s negative attitude towards the applicant and given that his legal parents were opposed to providing such information, it would not be in the child’s interest to impose such obligation on them. On 24 January 2023 the applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (I. ÚS 3463/22). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private or family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the relationship between the applicant and the child amount to “family life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   8 regarding the refusal of his request to have the contact rights with his son determined by the court and to receive information about the child’s development? Did the courts adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify such refusal and did they take due account of the interests of all the persons concerned, including the child’s best interests (see, for example, Schneider v.   Germany , no. 17080/07, §§ 95 and 104, 15 September 2011, and Fröhlich v. Germany , no. 16112/15, § 66, 26 July 2018)? Have the courts considered the possibility of granting the applicant a separate right to information, although he was neither the child’s legal father bearing the parental responsibility nor was he granted contact rights under Article 927 of the Civil Code?