| Applicant name | SIOUD |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | GERMANY |
| Application no. | 48698/21 |
| Date | 24/10/2023 |
| Judges | Faris Vehabović, President, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Sebastian Răduleţu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Procedural requirements implicit |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; relational privacy |
| Keywords | Contact with child |
| Facts of the case | he applicant and L.’s mother divorced in 2016. Since then, L. has been living with her mother. The parents have been in dispute over the applicant’s contacts with L. for years; several provisional arrangements ultimately failed. Court procedures proved improductive for the applicant. |
| Analysis | The ECtHR finds that the domestic family court had expressed concerns about the mother’s influence on the child and ordered contact with the applicant in spite of the child’s refusal to see her father, the Court of Appeal’s failure either to hear the child again before suspending the applicant’s contacts or to order an expert opinion, which the specialist parties had recommended. This reveals, in the Court’s opinion, that the court of appeal’s procedural approach did not provide it with a sufficient factual basis for its decision-making. It follows that the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 of the Convention were not complied with. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 6 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |