CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković
4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Porto. 5. On an unknown date, the applicant and I. dissolved their marriage and the latter stayed with the children’s custody. 6. On 28 November 2008 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision establishing the applicant’s contact rigths. 7. On 27 May 2009 I. sent a letter to the applicant informing him that she had suspended his contact rights. 8. On 5 June 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Porto Family Court informing about I.’s decision to not comply with the court’s decision of 28 November 2008 and asking the court to schedule a hearing with him and his former wife (audiência de pais) so he could continue to have access to his children (processo de incumprimento das responsabilidades parentais). 9. In June 2009 the Porto Family Court held a hearing with the parents and subsequently requested a social report about the children to the Social Security Institute (Instituto da Segurança Social). 10. On 14 July 2009 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision suspending the applicant’s right to visit his children for a period of three months on the grounds of the social report that had been submitted on 13 July 2009. The Family Court also requested a psychological assessment of the children. 11. From September 2009 to January 2012 the applicant lodged several requests with the Family Court seeking the reestablishment of his right to visit his children and asking permission to spend special dates (birthdays, Christmas, Easter) with them. 12. On 4 February 2010 the Social Security Institute submitted the children’s psychological report to the Family Court. On 18 February 2010 the report was challenged by the applicant who complained that he had not been heard. On 5 March 2010 the Family Court ordered the psychological report to be completed after the applicant had been heard. 13. On 22 March and 27 August 2010 two new reports were submitted to the Family Court and a mediation hearing with the parents was scheduled for November 2010. The hearing did not take place due to I.’s refusal to participate in the mediation. The proceedings continued and, on an unknown date, the Family Court adopted a decision stating that the applicant’s visits would continue to take place in an open place and in dates to be decided by the court. 14. On 30 March 2011 a hearing with the parents took place and both agreed that the applicant could continue to visit his children in the Family Court’s premises. 15. On 25 November 2011 the Family Court requested another social report on the children’s situation and their family. 16. On 2 February 2012 another social report was submitted to the Family Court and on 28 February the applicant was heard. 17. A hearing with the parents was scheduled for 27 March 2012 and later postponed to 2 May 2012. A few days after this hearing, the children were heard by the Family Court. 18. On 10 May 2012 a new hearing took place in which the applicant and I. reached a settlement concerning the rights of the former to visit the children. On the same day, the Family Court endorsed the agreement.