CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 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 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 27415/23 S.T. against Bulgaria lodged on 23 June 2023 communicated on 16 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the authorities to comply with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to enable the effective exercise of family life of the applicant, who could not live or spend time together with her daughter (aged between 15 and 17 at the time) for at least two years, despite a final judgment having awarded custody of the child to the applicant. By a judgement of 20 April 2018 the Sofia District Court granted divorce to the parents, gave custody rights to the mother and determined contact rights with the father. The judgment was confirmed on appeal on 8 May 2019, and became final on 26 May 2020 when the Supreme Court of Cassation did not allow cassation review. It appears that since 5 May 2021 – when the child went to visit her father in line with the contact rights determined by the court – the applicant has not seen her daughter, other than in the court room in the context of new proceedings for change of custody rights brought by the father. According to the applicant, the daughter has been refusing contact with her under the influence of her father. The applicant complains that her numerous calls for action by the authorities since 10 May 2021, in particular to social services and a bailiff, turned out futile. Specifically, she repeatedly sought urgent preparatory measures aimed at facilitating her reunion with the child. Even though both the courts (in proceedings in which the father had challenged recommendations issued by the social services) and the social services recognised that the daughter was a child at risk in terms of psychological and social development as a result of lack of contact with the mother, no adequate and timely measures were put in place to enable contact between mother and daughter faced with obstruction by the father. In a judgment of 26 June 2023 the Sofia District Court, sitting at first instance, granted custody of the child to the father and determined contact rights between the applicant an her daughter. The applicant appealed against that judgment. However, she claims that as of 27 November 2024 there has been no further development in those proceedings. Given that in the meantime her daughter turned 18, the case is subject to discontinuation under the law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the alleged failure on the part of the relevant authorities to put in place timely and adequate measures with a view to reuniting the applicant with her daughter in line with the 2018 Sofia District Court’s judgment granting custody of the child to her (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no.   31679/96, ECHR 2000-I; Santos Nunes v. Portugal , no.   61173/08 , §§ 66-69, 22 May 2012, and Aneva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 66997/13 and 2   others, 6   April 2017)? The parties are invited to provide information about any relevant developments.