CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26002/24 Jérôme Raoul SCHOUMANN against Lithuania lodged on 10 September 2024 communicated on 14 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the first applicant’s complaint regarding the Lithuanian courts’ refusal to impose an interim measure requiring his minor daughters (the second and the third applicants) to attend French language classes. The first applicant is a French national, residing in Georgia. The applicant has two daughters with a Lithuanian national, who were born in 2017 and 2020, and who both hold French and Lithuanian nationalities. From 2011 to 2020 the first applicant and his spouse A.S., the mother of the second and the third applicants, lived in London. They then moved to France, where they resided from March 2020 to August 2021, and then left for Georgia. In March 2023 A.S. took the second and the third applicants for vacation to Lithuania where they remain to this day. In July 2023 she started court proceedings in Lithuania seeking that the children’s temporary residence be assigned with her, and that the first applicant be ordered to pay child maintenance. The first applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking divorce, and establishment of contacts with the children. On 10   January 2024, during the ongoing proceedings regarding the determination of the children’s place of residence and child maintenance before the Kaunas District Court, the first applicant submitted a request for interim measures concerning the contact arrangements with his daughters, and in addition requested that his minor daughters attend French language classes. The first applicant indicated that, upon finding a French language teacher and informing A.S. of the proposed classes times, she should be obliged to ensure their daughters’ attendance at the classes. On 8 February 2024 the Kaunas District Court partially granted the first applicant’s request and issued a contacts order between him and his daughters, to remain in effect until a final decision is adopted. The first applicant lodged an appeal and requested interim measures. On 14 May 2024 the Kaunas Regional Court partially amended the contacts order of 8 February 2024 issued by the Kaunas District Court. The regional court established that the applicant could communicate with his daughters eight days every two months without overnight stays, and in addition, but on condition that the applicant and A.S. would reach an agreement, for five and a half weeks during summer holidays. The regional court acknowledged that although the first applicant’s and A.S.’s relationship was very tense, there was no evidence in the case that the first applicant’s communication with his daughters would cause them harm; the children willingly communicated with him. In respect of the first applicant’s request to grant the interim measure ensuring his daughters’ attendance of French language classes, the court concluded that, at the stage of applying interim measures, it did not have the possibility to thoroughly and comprehensively examine and determine what contact arrangements between the first applicant and the minor children would best serve the children’s interests. Therefore, the other conditions of the contact arrangements requested by the first applicant – such as restrictions on the location (territory) where the daughters and their father may be together, French language classes, and others – along with the arguments and evidence presented, could only be assessed and determined after the civil case was examined on the merits. Consequently, the court stated that it did not address the first applicant’s request to establish those conditions in greater detail and found that this part of the request had been rightly dismissed. The first applicant complains under Article   8 of the Convention about the Lithuanian courts’ rejection to grant the interim measure ensuring the applicant’s daughters’ French classes attendance. The first applicant states that he finds it increasingly difficult to communicate with his daughters, both during video calls and during his brief contact during his visits to Lithuania and the situation has only worsened over time. The first applicant considers that the Lithuanian courts   refused to take a measure that could reasonably have been expected of them   to facilitate contact between the father and his daughters and they failed to prevent the risk of an   irreparable rupture   between a father and his young children due to the lack of a shared language of communication. The first applicant submits that his daughters are gradually losing their knowledge and use of French, which is not only the first applicant’s and paternal grandmother’s native language – spoken daily during their time living in France – but also the language of the second and the third applicant’s birth country and one of their nationalities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Is Article   8 of the Convention applicable in the present case (see McIlwrath v. Russia , no.   60393/13, §   121, 18   July 2017, and the case-law cited therein)?   2. If so, has there been a violation of the State’s positive obligation under Article   8 of the Convention regarding the dismissal of the first applicant’s request to grant an interim measure ensuring his daughters’ French classes attendance in order to have a shared language for communication in the light of potential length of the main court proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , McIlwrath v. Russia , cited above, §   124, Kacper Nowakowski v. Poland , no.   32407/13, §   95, 10   January 2017 and Vyshnyakov v. Ukraine , no.   25612/12, §§   35 and 36, 24   July 2018 )?   3.     The parties are requested to provide the most recent information about the main court proceedings.