CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 28 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55206/22 Beáta JANOČKOVÁ and Daniel KVOCERA against Slovakia lodged on 24 October 2022 communicated on 7 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns the length and effectiveness of proceedings for the enforcement of an assisted contact order ( rozhodnutie o asistovanom styku ) between the applicants (a mother and her son born in 2014), the authorities’ alleged failure to take the necessary measures to ensure that assisted contact and the effectiveness of the domestic remedy provided by the Constitutional Court. The applicants allege that the enforcement proceedings have been ongoing since 12 July 2021 and that they have had no contact during this period. On 29 June 2022 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and to respect for their private and family life (II. ÚS 167/2022). However, it did neither order the enforcement court to accelerate the proceedings nor award the applicants just satisfaction. On 24 May 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed another constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants. It found the complaints raised by the first applicant manifestly ill-founded and rejected the complaints raised on behalf of the second applicant for lack of standing on account of conflict of interest between him and the first applicant (II. ÚS 276/2023). According to the applicants’ submissions the enforcement proceedings are still ongoing and the Constitutional Court’s involvement in this case has not had any effect. The applicants complain under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   In particular: (i)     given the length of the enforcement proceedings during which the applicants have had no contact, and the role inherently played by the passage of time, have the domestic authorities complied with their positive obligations with regard to respect for the applicants’ family life under Article   8 of the Convention (see Janočková and Kvocera v. Slovakia , no. 39980/22, §§   44 ‑ 51, 8   February 2024)? (ii)     having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the particularly strained relationship between the first applicant and the child’s father, have the domestic authorities discharged their positive obligations to ensure the effective exercise of the first applicant’s contact rights and to establish a meaningful relationship between the applicants ( Anagnostakis v.   Greece , no. 26504/20, §§ 55-58, 10 October 2023)?   2.     In the light of the Court’s case-law (see Janočková and Kvocera, cited above, §   63; Bergmann v. the Czech Republic , no. 8857/08 , §§   45 ‑ 46, 27   October 2011; and Kuppinger v. Germany , no. 62198/11, §   137, 15   January 2015), did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints raised under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?