08 Apr Decision on discontinuing applicant’s contact with his children has led to violation of Article 8 of the Convention

The European Court of Human Rights held that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case A.V. v. Slovenia (application no. 878/13, 09.04.2019). The case concerned domestic court decisions to remove the applicant’s Mr. A.V. right to have contact with his children and the work of the welfare authorities.

Following their separation, the applicant and his former wife, M., in concluded an agreement on contact arrangements with his three children. Problems with regard to its implementation arose in June 2006. Consequently, the applicant had no contact with his children between July 2006 and November 2008. In court proceedings initiated by the applicant in July 2006 a court-appointed psychiatrist submitted that the children found contact with their father unpleasant and refused it. In April 2008 the District Court granted the applicant regular contact once a week in the presence of a school psychologist. On appeal, the Higher Court determined that contact should take place every other Wednesday in the presence of an expert caseworker from the Social Work Centre. In June 2011 the District Court issued a decision discontinuing contact between Mr V. and his children, finding that the sessions were no longer in the children’s best interests because they were too traumatic. The Higher Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and a constitutional complaint was also unsuccessful.

Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of a violation of his rights because of the domestic courts’ decisions to end his right to contact with his three children, their refusal to order family therapy, and because of the allegedly inadequate work of the welfare authorities.

The Court draws attention to the expert psychiatrist’s opinion that the possibility of establishing contact between the children and the applicant was only possible within the context of family therapy – a measure previously requested by the applicant and suggested by the Centre and the domestic courts. However, it notes that the domestic courts never ordered such therapy. Thus, the Court found that in the present case the domestic authorities did not strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, on the one hand, and the aims referred to by the respondent Government, on the other, and did not discharge their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. There has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights