Communicated on 16 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27380/20 Vladyslav Sergiyovych BOGDANOV against Ukraine lodged on 12 June 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladyslav Sergiyovych Bogdanov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Chernihiv.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant married K. On 25 April 2016 their son, D, was born. The relationship between the applicant and K. deteriorated and the couple initiated divorce proceedings. K. and the child started to live separately from the applicant. The applicant had regular meetings with his son as he continued to exercise his parental authority after the divorce. He instituted proceedings seeking an order that the child should live with him.

On 5 March 2019 the applicant applied to the police, asking them to establish the whereabouts of his son, as he had been unable to contact the child ’ s mother for a long time.

On 8 April 2019 the police informed the applicant that they had established the address where the child and his mother were living. However, the child ’ s mother, relying on the Personal Data Protection Act, refused to give them permission to communicate the new address to the applicant. The police therefore did not disclose to the applicant the address where his son resided.

The applicant initiated proceedings against the police, submitting that they had unlawfully refused to provide him with information regarding the residence of his child and that they had thereby prevented him from exercising his parental rights and duties.

On 11 July 2019 the Chernigiv Circuit Administrative Court allowed the applicant ’ s claim, finding that the police had not taken all effective measures to resolve the applicant ’ s issue. The court specified that the applicant ’ s request to establish the whereabouts of D. was based on the fact that the applicant was D. ’ s father, and in that capacity he had been entitled to communication with his son.

On 11 November 2019 the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the above decision and refused the applicant ’ s claim. The appellate court found that, since the child ’ s whereabouts had been established, there was no call to take any further measures in this regard. Furthermore, the child ’ s mother had been explicit that she did not wish to share her home address with the applicant and so the police had acted in compliance with the Personal Data Protection Act when refusing to disclose this information to the applicant. Therefore, the court found that the police had acted in accordance with the law and had responded to the applicant ’ s request in a sufficient manner.

By a final ruling of 23 December 2019 the Supreme Court found no grounds to open proceedings on the basis of the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law.

According to Article 153 of the Family Code, a parent and a child are entitled to unimpeded communication with each other, except in cases where such communication is restricted by law.

According to section 14 § 2 of the Personal Data Protection Act, dissemination of personal data without the consent of the personal data subject or his/her authorised person is allowed in cases specified by law and only (if necessary) in the interests of national security, economic well-being and human rights.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that, by refusing to disclose to him the home address of his son, the domestic authorities prevented effective communication between him and his son.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the refusal of the domestic authorities to disclose to the applicant the home address of his son compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention?