Communicated on 16 September 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 6221/14 Cristian Că t ă lin UNGUREANU against Romania lodged on 25 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Cristian Cătălin Ungureanu , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Ploiești .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was married to I.M.U. and they had a son together, born in 2006. Following a series of conflicts between the parents concerning their son ’ s education, on 13 September 2012 I.M.U. filed for divorce and custody of the child. On 19 October 2012 she left the family home and took the child with her. They moved in with her parents and grandmother.

On 2 November 2012 the applicant filed a request, by means of an urgent procedure ( ordonan ţă pre ş eden ţ ial ă ) to be granted sole or shared custody of the child during divorce proceedings, or alternatively the right to visit the child during those proceedings.

The Ploiești District Court gave its ruling on 8 January 2013. It considered that changing the child ’ s residence would not serve his interests. It also observed that the applicant had not been prevented from visiting his child in the mother ’ s new home and he confirmed that fact in his statements before the court. In any case, the court considered that the law did not provide for the possibility to have visiting rights established during divorce proceedings. It relied on Article 613 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The decision was upheld by the Prahova County Court which dismissed all the arguments raised by the applicant concerning his right to visit, reiterating that the law did not allow for granting that right during custody proceedings. The court rendered the final decision in the case on 27 May 2013. It became available to the parties on 18 June 2013.

During the proceedings, the applicant ’ s lawyer informed him that she could no longer represent him because I.M.U. ’ s mother who was the former principal of the school attended by the applicant ’ s child and the lawyer ’ s child, tried to put pressure on her by having her called at school to discuss about the case.

In June 2013 the applicant, who was in the habit of visiting his son at school in the mornings, was thrown out of the school premises by the guardian who informed him that he needed the school principal ’ s permission if he wanted to see his son. The applicant describes that after the courts rendered the final decision, his wife and her family denied him any further contact with his son.

The divorce proceedings are still ongoing.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 613 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the former Code) applicable at that date provided that during the divorce proceedings, the court could order temporary measures, by means of an urgent procedure, concerning: custody of children, alimony, child allowance and use of the family home.

The same provision was incorporated in Article 919 of the New Code of Civil Procedure which entered into force on 15 February 2013.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 6, 8, 14 and 17 of the Convention about the manner in which his request for visiting rights was examined by the courts and the repercussions of the court decisions on his relationship with his son and on the child ’ s psychological development .

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 so far as the courts could not secure him the right to visit his child during the divorce and custody proceedings ?