Communicated on 14 March 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 38647/09 Gábor ÓNODI against Hungary lodged on 16 July 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gábor Ónodi , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Szajol . He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Regász , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The circumstances of the case

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

From 6 October 1990 the applicant was married to Ms N.R. The couple had one daughter, R.Ó, born on 23 March 1994.

On 24 March 2006 the couple divorced and agreed on the child ’ s custody and other parental rights. This agreement was confirmed by the Szolnok District Court, which placed the daughter with her mother and granted the applicant access every second weekend, during school holidays and three weeks during the summer holiday. The applicant was also to pay child allowance, amounting to 20% of his salary, but at least to 20,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 66 euros (EUR)) per month.

Ms N.R. moved out from the house, previously jointly used by the family, and took up a new residence in Budapest.

The applicant could exercise his access rights on 25-26 June and 24 July 2006. However, the applicant ’ s daughter was reluctant to stay with the applicant during the summer holiday and preferred to spend her holiday with her grandparents.

The applicant ’ s further attempts to exercise his access rights failed, apparently for the reason that, in the mother ’ s point of view, it was up to the child to decide whether she wanted to see her father. The applicant sought the enforcement of his access rights by the guardianship authority. On a number of occasions Ms N.R. was warned, fined and obliged to pay the applicant ’ s travel costs incurred when attempting to meet his daughter. However, none of these measures had any result.

In 2007 Ms N.R. lodged an action seeking the modification of the applicant ’ s access rights and the increase of the amount of the child allowance. In his counter-claim the applicant requested the child ’ s placement in his custody.

The applicant also initiated proceedings against Ms N.R. alleging the endangering of a minor.

By its judgment of 10 June 2008 the Szolnok District Court reduced the applicant ’ s access to his daughter to every first and third Saturday of the month from 9 a.m. to 18 p.m. According to the court ’ s reasoning, the previously agreed form of access rights was unlikely to be implemented and would only lead to further proceedings before the guardianship authority, to the detriment of the child.

On appeal the Jász - Nagykun -Szolnok County Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment in essence, but set the applicant ’ s access rights for every second Saturday, between 9 a.m. and 16 p.m. for the period until 31 May 2009 and for every second weekend, as of 1 June 2009.

In 2010 the applicant ’ s access rights were subject to further litigation. By its final judgment of 15 April 2010 the Jász - Nagykun -Szolnok County Regional Court re-regulated the applicant ’ s parental rights, granting him access to his daughter every second weekend, with the condition that the daughter, at the material time already 16 years old, ought to visit the applicant by herself. The court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for the decrease of the child allowance. The applicant ’ s petition for review, lodged with the Supreme Court was dismissed on 8 February 2011.

As it appears from the case-file, the meetings between the applicant and his daughter took place only sporadically in 2010 and completely fell out in 2011, despite the applicant ’ s numerous enforcement requests lodged with the guardianship authority.

The applicant lodged a number of requests seeking the termination of his obligation to pay child allowance, which was finally accepted by the Budapest IV and XV District Court on 10 October 2012 and on appeal by the Budapest High Court on 3 September 2013. Nonetheless, the applicant ’ s additional request for the reimbursement of child allowance already paid was dismissed by both court-instances.

COMPLAINT

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the domestic authorities ’ failure to enforce his access rights and their subsequent decisions not to terminate his obligation to pay child allowance, despite his repeated requests.

QUESTION 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, have the authorities fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 8 to ensure the applicant ’ s access to his child and proper exercise of his parental responsibility?