5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bad Berleburg. 6.  The applicant has a daughter who was born out of wedlock on 25 July 1997. He lived with the mother of the child from April 1997 until their separation on 29 June 1998. The daughter remained with the mother. 7.  Following a request of the applicant for regulation of his contact rights lodged with the Bad Berleburg District Court (Amtsgericht), the parents concluded an agreement on 2 August 1999, pursuant to which the applicant had the right to have contact with the child every Sunday from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The last contact between the applicant and his daughter took place on 24 October 1999. 8.  In November 1999 the mother and the daughter moved from Bad Berleburg to Stralsund without notifying the applicant. The mother has refused to allow any further contact between the applicant and the child ever since. 9.  On 20 January 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Stralsund District Court for a new regulation of his contact rights on the ground that following his daughter’s move to Stralsund the considerable distance between their respective places of domicile required a review of the relevant stipulations in the agreement concluded on 2 August 1999. The mother objected by written submissions dated 16 February 2000, alleging that following meetings between the applicant and their daughter prior to her move to Stralsund, the latter had shown signs of behavioural disorders. 10.  The Stralsund District Court obtained the opinions of the Siegen Wittgenstein District’s and Stralsund Youth Welfare Offices dated 9 and 29 March 2000, respectively stating that the mother alleged that the applicant had sexually abused their daughter on the occasion of previous reunions. 11.  On 15 May 2000 the Stralsund District Court held a first hearing.
On 18 May 2000 the District Court ordered a psychological expert report, which was rendered on 14 July 2000. The expert opinion did not confirm the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse and recommended a regulation of the applicant’s contact rights in the interest of the child’s welfare. 12.  On 14 August 2000 the District Court scheduled a second hearing for 18 September 2000, which was postponed at the request of the mother’s lawyer and finally cancelled following notification by the applicant that he and his lawyer were not able to attend on the rescheduled date. 13.  By a letter to the District Court dated 13 October 2000 the applicant pointed out that the mother had meanwhile refused him contact with the child for almost a year, and asked for an indication when a further hearing in the matter would take place. 14.  On 26 October 2000 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 16 November 2000, which was postponed to 25 January 2001 at the request of the mother’s lawyer. The District Court heard the parents, the appointed expert, the representative of the Stralsund Welfare Office and an expert witness presented by the mother. 15.  By decision of 14 February 2001, the Stralsund District Court held that the suspicion of sexual abuse had not been confirmed and granted the applicant the right to have supervised contact with the child from 9 am to 12 midday every third Friday of the month, in the presence of a representative of the Stralsund Youth Welfare Office.
The decision was served on the applicant on 10 April 2001. 16.  On 9 May 2001 the mother lodged an appeal with the Rostock Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) asking for the rejection of the father’s right of contact. The applicant objected to the appeal by written submissions dated 28 June 2001 and asked for an extension of his contact rights to two days per month without monitoring. 17.  On 12 November 2001 the Rostock Court of Appeal heard the parents and the representative of the Stralsund Welfare Office. 18.  By a decision of 20 December 2001 the Rostock Court of Appeal provisionally suspended the execution of the Stralsund District Court’s decision of 14 February 2001 to the extent the applicant had been granted contact rights that went beyond supervised access. It further appointed a curator ad litem to represent the child and decided to obtain a further psychological expert opinion on a possible arrangement regarding the applicant’s contact rights which was ordered on 1 March 2002. The mother, who had meanwhile moved to Berlin with her daughter, refused any contact between the curator ad litem and the child and rejected the expert appointed by the Court of Appeal. 19.  On 5 August 2002 the expert rendered an opinion on the basis of an examination of the applicant on which both the mother and the applicant commented by written submissions on 16 September and 16 October 2002 respectively. 20.  On 23 October 2002 the Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing for 27 January 2003 that was not attended by the mother or the child due to the latter’s sickness and therefore had to be postponed to 3 March 2003. 21.  On 3 March 2003 the Court of Appeal heard the child, the parents, the child’s curator ad litem and the representative of the Stralsund Youth Welfare Office. The mother again refused an examination of the child and herself by the appointed expert. 22.  On 19 March 2003 the Court of Appeal specified its decision to take evidence dated 20 December 2001 with a view to obtaining a psychological expert opinion on the question whether there was any indication of sexual abuse of the child by the applicant and whether contact between the applicant and the child was in the interest of the child’s welfare. The Court of Appeal further reconfirmed the appointment of the previously nominated expert. 23.  On 15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing for 17 November 2003, after three attempts in April, June and July 2003 by the expert to schedule appointments with the mother for an examination had failed. A representative of the Youth Welfare Office as well as the child’s curator ad litem were present at the hearing. At the request of the mother the child’s psychotherapist was heard as a witness. 24.  By a decision dated 28 January 2004 the Court of Appeal suspended the applicant’s contact rights until 31 December 2007 and obliged the mother to report to the applicant on the personal development of his daughter. The Court of Appeal held that even though it was not convinced of the mother’s accusations that the child had been sexually abused by the applicant, it was not in the interest of the child’s welfare to grant the father right of contact. It found that the parents’ relationship had completely deteriorated and an enforcement of the applicant’s contact rights against the will of the mother would put even more pressure on the child. 25.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. 26.  On 9 June 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court set aside the decision of 28 January 2004 and remitted the case to the Rostock Court of Appeal. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to the care and upbringing of his child had been infringed on the ground that the Court of Appeal had not sufficiently taken into account the welfare of the child and the parenting right of the father in its decision. 27.  On 3 November 2004 the Court of Appeal again heard the parents, the child’s curator ad litem and the representative of the Stralsund Youth Welfare Office. 28.  On 19 November 2004 the Court of Appeal heard the daughter. 29.  By decision dated 13 December 2004 the Court of Appeal confirmed its order to obtain an expert opinion dated 19 March 2003 and reappointed the same expert who had previously been nominated and rejected by the mother. It further asked for an opinion by the Berlin-Neukölln Youth Welfare Office which had become locally competent following the mother’s move to Berlin. The opinion was delivered on 18 January 2005. 30.  On 8 April 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected a challenge lodged by the mother for bias on the part of the expert on the ground that it had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. 31.  On 11 May 2005 the Court of Appeal instructed the expert to render an opinion on the basis of the exploration of the father and the case file, after having been informed on 4 May 2005 that an attempt by the expert to meet with the mother had failed due to the mother’s objection. 32.  On 8 August 2005 and on 11 October 2005 the Court of Appeal inquired why the expert opinion had not yet been finalised. 33.  On 14 October 2005 the expert opinion was delivered and served on the applicant on 24 October 2005. According to the findings of the expert there were no substantiated indications that the child had been sexually abused by the father. 34.  On 12 January 2006 a further challenge lodged by the mother for bias on the part of the expert was rejected by the Court of Appeal. 35.  On 17 January 2006 the Court of Appeal scheduled a further hearing for 14 February 2006, which the mother and child did not attend and which was therefore rescheduled for 17 March 2006. On the occasion of the hearing the child, the parents, the curator ad litem and a representative of the Neukölln Youth Welfare Office were heard. 36.  By a decision of 20 April 2006, the Court of Appeal deprived the mother of custody of the child to the extent that her approval of the child’s examination by an expert was concerned, and appointed the Neukölln Youth Welfare Office as the child’s guardian (Ergänzungspfleger) in this respect. The Court of Appeal further obliged the mother to permit the guardian contact with the child and instructed the bailiff to enable such contact, by force if need be. 37.  Nevertheless, the mother obstructed two subsequent attempts by the Youth Welfare Office on 26 September and 20 October 2006 to collect the child with a view to bringing her to the expert for examination. 38.  On 13 December 2006 the Court of Appeal informed the expert that the examination of the child should be finalised by 31 January 2007. It asked the expert to schedule further dates for a corresponding appointment and instructed the appointed guardian at the Neukölln Youth Welfare Office to see to it that such appointments were implemented. 39.  On 9 January 2007 the guardian informed the Court of Appeal that in her opinion a forced meeting with the expert would not be in the interest of the child’s welfare. 40.  On 16 January 2007 the expert informed the Court of Appeal that the guardian had not brought the child to appointments scheduled for 9 and 16 January 2007. 41.  On 22 January 2007 the child’s curator ad litem pointed out that an examination of the child had been ordered by the Court of Appeal on 19 March 2003 but had still not occurred to this date and denounced the guardian’s refusal to implement the Court of Appeal’s orders. 42.  In reply to an inquiry by the Court of Appeal of 23 January 2007, the Head of the Neukölln Welfare Youth Office supported the decision of the guardian not to proceed to an examination of the child by force. 43.  By decision of 20 March 2007 the Court of Appeal amended its decision of 20 April 2006 and appointed a new guardian for the child. An attempt by the newly appointed guardian to call for the child on 3 July 2007 was to no avail. 44.  On 13 July 2007 the Court of Appeal further amended its decision of 20 April 2006 and obliged all third persons in charge of the child to hand her over to the guardian for the purpose of examination by the expert. 45.  On 17 March 2008, following a further move of the mother and daughter to Bad Zwesten-Oberurff, the Court of Appeal appointed a new expert for the child’s examination and the Schwalm-Eder District Youth Welfare Office as a new guardian for the child. 46.  A first contact between the guardian and the mother was established on 28 April 2008. Furthermore, the newly appointed expert confirmed by a letter dated 18 June 2008 that the mother had attended a first appointment for examination. 47.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the lack of an effective remedy as regards the length of the instant proceedings. 48.  On 15 December 2008 the expert opinion was submitted to the Court of Appeal who set a deadline of three weeks for comments by the parties. According to the expert, the daughter’s rejection of her father constituted a strategy adopted by the child with a view to handling the tense situation caused by her mother’s conduct. Furthermore, due to the passage of time a scientific clarification of the allegations of sexual abuse was no longer possible. In their written submissions the applicant as well as the Youth Welfare Office asked for an additional assessment in writing by the expert whether and under which conditions contacts between the applicant and his daughter could be established. By a letter of 26 January 2009 the Court of Appeal made the related request and the expert submitted her additional observations to the court on 6 February 2009. The expert found that there was a risk that contact against the daughter’s will would further unsettle her. 49.  On the occasion of a hearing on 18 May 2009 the parties and the child’s guardian and curator ad litem were heard. The guardian objected to a forced establishment of contacts between father and daughter. The applicant’s daughter was also heard by the court and objected to having contact with her father. A supplementary expert statement was ordered by the court and submitted on 15 June 2009. In his written observations of 3 July 2009 the applicant contested the expert’s supplementary statements. The expert commented by written submissions of 27 July 2009. A further request by the court for clarification was answered by the expert on 17 August 2009 and was forwarded to the parties for final observations. 50.  By a judgment of 25 November 2009 the Court of Appeal amended the decision of the Stralsund District Court dated 14 February 2001 and regulated the applicant’s contact rights for the period until 31 July 2011. It obliged the mother to inform the applicant twice a year in writing about their daughter’s development and to communicate her current address. The applicant was granted the right to send a letter and photos to the child once a month through an independent intermediary to be appointed by the guardian. No further contact rights were granted. Relying in particular on the findings of the expert as well as the guardian and the daughter’s own statements, the court held that for the time being personal contact between the applicant and his daughter against the latter’s will would be contrary to the best interest of the child. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 November 2009 and has become final.