Published on 29 March 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 11761/20 J. S. against Estonia lodged on 28 February 2020 communicated on 8 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a custody dispute and a subsequent enforcement of contact arrangements.

The applicant is a mother of two children, a girl and a boy, born in 2009 and 2010, respectively. After the parents ’ relationship ended, both of them requested custody rights over the children ’ s place of residence and education. The domestic court proceedings at three courts instances lasted from April 2015 until September 2019, including approximately four years at the first-instance court. During the majority of that time the son lived with the mother and the daughter with the father, as decided by the interim court decisions. In the course of the proceedings the first-instance court ordered a psychological-psychiatric expert assessment of the parents and of one of the children and rendered fourteen decisions concerning interim measures in order to guarantee contact rights between the parents and the children. In the main case the first-instance court decided that the father should have full custody over the son ’ s place of residence and education and that the applicant should have full custody over the daughter ’ s place of residence and education. Detailed contact arrangements were also set. The first-instance court admitted that despite the interim measures providing for mother ’ s contact rights, the applicant had not seen her daughter for approximately ten months before the decision in the main case was rendered. The applicant claims not having seen her daughter after the first-instance court decision either. Her appeals were unsuccessful.

Referring to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings. Under Article 8 she also complains that she was not enabled sufficient contact with her children during the proceedings. She also complains, under Article 8, about the outcome of the proceedings and about the subsequent enforcement of her contacts rights with her daughter.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the custody proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 and/or was it in breach of the State ’ s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see M. and M. v. Croatia , no. 10161/13, §§ 179 and 182, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Ribić v. Croatia , no. 27148/12, § 92, 2 April 2015; compare Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino , no. 32250/08 , § 189, 27 September 2011)?

2. Given the outcome of the custody proceedings, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see K.B. and others v. Croatia , no 36216/13, §§ 142-144, 14 March 2017; Z. v. Poland , no. 34694/06, § 78, 20 April 2010; Pisică v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 23641/17, § 79, 29 October 2019) ?

In particular, did the domestic authorities take all the necessary steps during the custody proceedings that could reasonably have been demanded in the specific circumstances to facilitate contact between the applicant and her children (especially her daughter)?

What steps has the applicant taken after the end of the custody proceedings in order to have contact with her daughter? Have the domestic authorities made sufficient efforts in order to facilitate the applicant ’ s contact rights with her daughter after the end of the custody proceedings? What is the role, under domestic law and practice, of the relevant guardianship authorities (the local municipalities) in this process?