CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2024

.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 26 August 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6656/24 Stanislav NOVÁK against the Czech Republic lodged on 26 February 2024 communicated on 15 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the appellate court’s refusal, in April 2013, to upheld the first-instance court’s judgment on shared custody of the applicant’s children, despite the children’s mother behaviour - that the applicant had unsuccessfully tried to prevent by requesting interim measures   -   consisting of having unilaterally decided to change the children’s place of residence and exercise their de facto exclusive custody. The appellate court indeed considered that, although both parents were clearly able to care for the children (born in 2014 and 2018), circumstances have significantly changed since the first-instance court decision on shared custody given that the children had adapted to their new environment in which they had lived since eight months and wanted to stay with their mother. The applicant was granted contact rights every second week-end and during holidays. The Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional appeal by the applicant as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the appellate court had taken account of relevant elements and convincingly explained why a shared custody was not a suitable option in the specific circumstances of the case (decision no. IV. ÚS 2049/23 of 17 October 2023). Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that his right to respect for his family life has been breached as a result of the appellate court’s decision validating the mother’s wrongful conduct and limiting his contact with his children. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, necessary and proportionate in terms of Article 8 § 2? Were the reasons put forward by the appellate court relevant and respectful of the children’s best interest and did the decision-making process provide the applicant with the requisite protection of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis , C. v. Finland , no.   18249/02, 9   May 2006 ; Prodělalová v. the Czech Republic , no. 40094/08, 20   December 2011; and Z .J. v. Lithuania , no. 60092/12, 29   April 2014)?