Communicated on 25 April 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 45309/15 Randolph Carey GRACE against Portugal lodged on 28 August 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a citizen of New Zealand. On 4 September 2014 he lodged a request with the Portuguese Central Authority, concerning the return of his son to New Zealand under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), on grounds of unlawful retention of his son in Portugal, by his mother.

The Braga Family Court, while holding that the retention of the child away from his habitual residence in New Zealand had been wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, on 3 November 2014 dismissed the request on grounds that his return would place the boy at grave risk within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. The court further found that the father had revealed an “inability to interact and care for the minor”. On 12 March 2015 the appellate court upheld the decision.

A second set of proceedings was started by the applicant´s wife, in which she sought custody of the child. On 15 February 2017 the Braga Family Court granted her request. The decision was upheld by the appellate court and became final on 20 November 2017, after the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant.

The applicant complains, in substance under Article 8 of the Convention, about the unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings. Regarding the Hague request, he claims that he was not notified of the hearing and was not given an opportunity to respond to evidence against him. According to the applicant, the Braga Family Court had thereby unduly restricted his right to adversarial proceedings. He further considers that in the custody proceedings the domestic courts have wrongly assessed the evidence and violated his right for respect to family life.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

2. In particular, were the proceedings under the Hague Convention compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, X v. Latvia , no. 27853/09, § 102, 26 November 2013; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland , no. 41615/07, § 139, 6 July 2010; and Phostira Efthymiou and Ribeiro Fernandes v. Portugal , no. 66775/11, § 42, 5 February 2015)?