Communicated on 15 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 22216/20 A.P. and A.M. against the Czech Republic lodged on 27 May 2020

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicants ’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the conduct of the custody proceedings within which the minor applicant A.M. was not heard and her statement was only inferred indirectly from other pieces of evidence. It further pertains to the alleged breach of the right to family life as a result of the transfer of the custody rights from the applicant A.P., the mother of A.M., to a crisis centre for minors and, subsequently, to the father.

The applicants complain of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention:

- that the national courts did not hear A.M. (then 11 years old) and that her statement was only inferred indirectly from other pieces of evidence;

- that the courts did not respect A.M. ’ s wish to continue in A.P. ’ s custody which led to her separation from her mother, A.P., and her family.

The applicant A.P. further complains under the same provision:

- that she was not allowed to share the common household with A.M.

- that the courts did not make any arrangement as to her contact with A.M. for the time after the transfer of custody to A.M. ’ s father and only to a limited extent while A.M. was in the crisis centre for minors

- that the decision of the courts were rendered without an expert ’ s report

- that no balance was struck between the interests of A.M. and her parents.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant A.P. have standing to act on behalf of the minor applicant A.M. (see Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia , nos. 8673/05 and 9733/05, 1 December 2009, § 90)?

2. Has the decision to transfer A.P. ’ s right to custody of A.M. to her father amounted to an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Has the decision-making process leading to the decision altering A.M. ’ s custody been fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have A.M. ’ s views and wishes been duly established (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §2 202-213, § 225, 10 September 2019 ?

4. Have the domestic authorities fulfilled any positive obligation which may arise under Article 8 of the Convention, in particular involving the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 75, ECHR 2007 ‑ I), i . e. between A.M and A.P. and A.M. ’ s father while deciding upon and conducting the transfer of custody to A.M. ’ s father?