FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SIOUD v. GERMANY
(Application no. 48698/21)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
24 October 2023
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sioud v. Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 48698/21) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 September 2021 by a German national, Mr Akram Sioud, born in 1983 and living in Hanau (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr G. Rixe, a lawyer practising in Bielefeld;
the decision to give notice of the application to the German Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr H.‑J. Behrens, of the Federal Ministry of Justice;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 3 October 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns proceedings regarding contact between the applicant and his child, L., a girl born on 10 December 2008. 2. The applicant and L.’s mother divorced in 2016. Since then, L. has been living with her mother. The parents have been in dispute over the applicant’s contacts with L. for years; several provisional arrangements ultimately failed. 3. On 26 February 2019 the Family Court ordered contact with the applicant every second Saturday and, after ten contact meetings, from Saturday to Sunday as well as during holidays. A custodian for the implementation of the contacts (Umgangspfleger) was temporarily appointed. The Family Court considered the most recent oral hearing of the child on 26 February 2019 where L. had stated – as on recent, similar occasions – that she did not wish to see the applicant. It based its decision on the observations submitted by the guardian ad litem appointed for L., the Youth Office and, in particular, the German Association for the Protection of Children, which had accompanied several contact meetings between the applicant and L. in the past; these specialist parties were unanimous in advocating unaccompanied contact. The Family Court found that gradually increasing the meetings would enable L. to open up again to her father, step by step. It also held that the appointment of the custodian was necessary as L.’s mother had been unable to prepare the child in a positive way for contact with the applicant. 4. The mother, and then the applicant, appealed. During the appeal proceedings the Youth Office, the guardian ad litem and the custodian submitted new observations, all recommending obtaining a psychologist’s expert opinion. On 4 July 2019 the Court of Appeal heard the parents, the representative of the Youth Office and the custodian. 5. On 31 October 2019 the Frankfurt Court of Appeal suspended the applicant’s contact until 30 June 2020. 6. The Court of Appeal based its decision on L.’s will not to see her father, as expressed during the first-instance proceedings, referring to a conflict of loyalty from which L. was suffering and from which she should be temporarily withdrawn. The court also briefly referred to new observations of the custodian, who had reported that L. strongly refused any contact with the applicant and that implementing contact was impossible under the given circumstances in the custodian’s view. The Court of Appeal also noted that the custodian had mentioned that L. was directly exposed to her mother’s opinions and added that it had to be admitted that the child’s mother had not only failed to promote the contact meetings but even more, at least non‑verbally, had encouraged L.’s refusal of contact. The Court of Appeal believed that, notwithstanding the possible influence of her mother, L.’s will was autonomously built and that the child’s mother was bound by her own statements that she would encourage contact. 7. Lastly, the Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to repeat some of the procedural acts undertaken before the Family Court, explaining briefly that it was unlikely that new elements would come to light. 8. The applicant’s complaint about a violation of his right to be heard was to no avail, as was his constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court (no. 1 BvR 373/20). 9. Relying on Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the Court of Appeal’s decision amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life and to a fair hearing.

Outcome for Article 8: violation