Published on 19 April 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 47410/20 Arūnas BAŠKYS against Lithuania lodged on 20 October 2020 communicated on 29 March 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The application concerns the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life. The applicant and A.G. are divorced; they have a seven-year-old son. The applicant lives in London, whereas A.G. and their son live in Lithuania. According to a friendly settlement agreement approved by a court in Lithuania in October 2016, the applicant was to see his son in Lithuania every other weekend and during summer holidays. However, that agreement has never been enforced, because of A.G. ’ s resistance, this fact having been acknowledged by the courts. The applicant and A.G. have undergone a new set of court proceedings for custody and visiting rights, which ended with a decision to maintain the status quo . By a final ruling of 27 July 2020, the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law.

Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that the Lithuanian authorities have failed to act so that the applicant ’ s ability to communicate with his son be ensured. The applicant is also dissatisfied that the status quo was maintained despite A.G. ’ s obstructive attitude. He further complains of the Lithuanian authorities ’ failure to act in a timely manner and their acquiescence in the light of A.G. ’ s failure to comply with the Lithuanian court decisions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the fact that in the wake of the second set of court proceedings, concerning the custody of the applicant ’ s son and visiting rights, it was decided that his son ’ s place of residence was to be with the child ’ s mother A.G., and not with the applicant (see Z.J. v. Lithuania , no. 60092/12, §§ 96-100, 29 April 2014, with further references)?

2 . Have the courts secured a fair balance of the interests involved (see G.B. v. Lithuania , no. 36137/13, § § 87, 88, 93, 94, 19 January 2016, and the case-law referred to therein)?

3 . Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as concerns the applicant ’ s right to be in contact with his son (see Manic v. Lithuania , no. 46600/11, §§ 99-104, 13 January 2015, and the case-law referred to therein)? Have the Lithuanian authorities discharged their duty to facilitate such contact?

The parties are requested to provide information as to whether and when the applicant has been able to visit and/or has visited his son in Lithuania since October 2016, when the Kaunas District Court permitted him to have such contact.