FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KYRIAN v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
(Application no. 15956/23)
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art 8 • Private life • Refusal to grant applicant contact rights in respect of his son, of whom he is not the legal father, and to have information provided about him • Domestic courts took adequate measures and adduced sufficient reasons for refused contact rights • Sufficient reasons adduced for refusal to order child’s legal parents to provide information • Decision-making process offered requisite protection of applicant’s interests safeguarded by Art 8 • Right to information about a child could be granted as an autonomous right, independent of personal contact under domestic law, respecting the requirement of an individualised approach under Art 8 • Impugned decisions fairly balanced competing interests at stake and pursued the child’s best interests
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
6 November 2025
 
FINAL
 
06/02/2026
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kyrian v. the Czech Republic,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 María Elósegui, President,
 Kateřina Šimáčková,
 Georgios A. Serghides,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Andreas Zünd,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 15956/23) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Czech national, Mr David Kyrian (“the applicant”), on 6 April 2023;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Czech Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns the refusal by the domestic courts to grant the applicant contact rights in respect of his son, of whom he is not the legal father, and to have information provided to him about the child. It raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Dublovice. He was represented by Mr P. Škopek, a lawyer practising in Příbram. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Konůpka, of the Ministry of Justice. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant is the father of a child born in December 2013 from an extramarital relationship with the mother which started in 2012. By reason of legal presumption, the mother’s then husband became the child’s legal father and the child lived with his legal parents. The applicant’s biological paternity was established by a DNA test which he had taken, on his own initiative, in 2015. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
6. Until February 2016 the applicant was able to see his son two to four times per month when the mother visited him. 7. In April 2016 the applicant lodged a claim with the Příbram District Court, seeking to be granted contact rights in respect of his son under Article 927 of the Civil Code. During a subsequent hearing, the applicant and the child’s legal father stated that their relationship was conflictual. 8. By a provisionally enforceable judgment of 18 May 2016, the court, finding that the applicant and his son had developed a positive relationship and that their contact had been interrupted by a decision of the mother, granted the applicant the right to see his son every Wednesday afternoon and every second Sunday during the summer holidays. Following an appeal by the mother and the legal father, the judgment was upheld by the Prague Regional Court on 9 November 2016. Calling on the applicant and the child’s legal parents to adopt a sensitive attitude and to consolidate their relationships in the interests of the child, the court observed that there had been an emotional bond between the applicant and his son, the strength of which, however, could not be established. At the same time, it acknowledged that the child had the right to know his biological father and to have regular personal contact with him. 9. It follows from the Government’s observations and documents submitted by them that during his visits with the child, conflicts repeatedly occurred between the applicant and the mother, which led them to arrange, in July and August 2016, several supervised visits in a neutral environment. From September 2016 until November 2017 the applicant’s visits with his son took place mostly as determined by the above-mentioned judgment, but a worsening of the child’s psychological condition was observed. 10. In September 2017 the applicant asked the court to be granted more extensive contact rights in respect of his son. The mother reacted by seeking a prohibition of contact, stating that the applicant was verbally abusive towards her and that the child was refusing the applicant’s visits, which made him upset and anxious, and that he had started seeing a psychologist. This was confirmed by the child’s legal father, who stated during a hearing that the applicant had also physically assaulted him. A judgment of 3 October 2017, by which both the applicant’s and the mother’s requests were dismissed, was quashed by the Regional Court, which found the District Court’s findings of fact insufficient to decide on the appropriate extent of the applicant’s contact rights; it also noted that the emotional bond between the applicant and his son was weakening and it called on the parties to change their attitude and to follow the psychologist’s recommendation to seek counselling. Subsequently, on the District Court’s order, the applicant and the legal parents attended a mediation session in April 2018, following which the contact between the applicant and his son continued without problems until mid-July 2018. By a judgment of 17 July 2018, the District Court approved an agreement reached during the mediation, according to which the applicant was to see his biological son every Wednesday afternoon and every second Sunday during the summer holidays. 11. Subsequently, several visits did not take place on account of the child’s refusal and an incident occurred between the applicant and the child’s legal parents, in respect of which the police were called. On the child protection authority’s recommendations, two supervised visits took place in October 2018 but on both occasions, conflicts arose between the applicant and the child, who could not cope with being separated from the mother. 12. According to a report of 10 October 2018 on the child’s visits to a psychologist, the child was strongly attached to his mother and his legal father and interactions with unfamiliar people were very stressful for him. The psychologist considered that imposed contact with the applicant might be the source of the child’s difficulties and that he should not be forced into unwanted visits. 13. Following a request by the legal parents in December 2018 that contact between the child and the applicant be prohibited, the Český Krumlov District Court and the České Budějovice Regional Court ruled in 2020 that no contact regime should be set, there being no indication, as required by Article 927 of the Civil Code, that the child had a positive emotional bond with the applicant or that a lack of contact would be harmful to his interests. The courts relied on, inter alia, an expert opinion by a clinical psychologist, according to which the child, who suffered from a developmental delay, had been caught in the middle of a relationship triangle involving the applicant and the child’s legal parents and mirrored the legal parents’ attitude in his relationship with the applicant; he was also very attached to his legal father, who provided him with emotional security. The expert expressed the view that it was in the best interests of the child not to grant any contact rights to the applicant at the material time, at least until after a marital crisis which the legal parents had been experiencing had been resolved. The courts also noted that the applicant had put consistent pressure on the child and his legal parents to assert his contacts rights, exacerbating the conflicts and interfering with the family situation, and this had created too much of a burden for the child to bear, leading him to develop a negative attitude towards the applicant. In the courts’ view, it was therefore necessary, and in the child’s best interests, to calm the situation, notably through professional help, which the applicant and the legal parents were invited to seek, and to enable the child’s mental state to stabilise, bearing in mind that the applicant should certainly take part in his son’s life in future. 14. On 13 October 2022 a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court found that the courts’ conclusion that it had not been in the child’s best interests to be in contact with the applicant as long as the relationship between the latter and the legal parents had remained conflictual was carefully reasoned. It observed that if the situation improved, the decision not to set any contact regime could be revised and contact reinstated. PROCEEDINGS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPLICATION
15. On 23 April 2021 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a new application with the court, seeking to be granted the right to see his son every Wednesday afternoon. 16. At a hearing of 24 August 2021, which was attended by the applicant’s counsel, the child’s legal parents stated that the child was very anxious about the family situation, which was confirmed by a report of a psychologist whom the child was seeing regularly. The child’s guardian ad litem advised the court to dismiss the applicant’s motion. The court then recommended that an expert psychologist’s report be prepared to assess the child’s relationship with the applicant and his position as to their contact. In her report of 18 March 2022, the expert observed that the fact that their previous visits had been complicated and that the child had repeatedly witnessed conflicts between the applicant and his legal parents amounted to a traumatic experience which had probably resulted in the child developing a negative attitude towards the applicant. Given that the child suffered from developmental delays, that the family situation was intellectually difficult for him to grasp and that it was not appropriate at the time to force him to meet another person, she did not recommend that the applicant be granted any contact rights, without ruling out a possibility of doing so in future if the applicant were to be more respectful of the child’s needs and if a positive bond were to develop between them. In a report dated 20 March 2022, the child’s psychologist confirmed that the child was experiencing anxiety attacks when he was in a new environment. 17. At a hearing on 24 March 2022, the applicant insisted on being granted at least the right to contact the child through written communication via the child’s guardian ad litem and on ordering the legal parents to regularly inform him about the child’s development. The legal parents refused that option, asserting that they were trying to stabilise the situation by continuing to live together and to improve the child’s mental state. They considered that any form of contact with the applicant would lead to additional emotional distress, pointing out that the conduct of the applicant, who sometimes lingered in front of the child’s kindergarten or their house, bordered on stalking. The child’s guardian ad litem expressed the view that all the applicant’s requests should be dismissed as being contrary to the child’s best interests. 18. By a judgment of 24 March 2022, the Příbram District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim but imposed a warning on the legal parents in respect of their refusal to cooperate and ordered them to respect the applicant’s biological parenthood. Referring to the conditions to which Article 927 of the Civil Code subjected the granting of contact rights to persons socially close to the child, it considered that it would not be in the child’s best interests to grant contact rights to the applicant. It noted in this connection that neither the applicant nor the legal parents had followed the repeated calls to respect the child’s needs, that the applicant’s coercive tactics had made it impossible to deescalate the situation and that the child had a strong emotional bond with his legal parents, whereas his negative attitude towards the applicant had not changed. As to the right to information about the child’s education and state of health, the courts observed that such right was a matter of parental responsibility and that the legal parents were opposed to communicating such information. Furthermore, given the child’s current attitude towards the applicant, there was no reason to consider that providing such information would be in the child’s best interests. 19. On 12 September 2022 the Prague Regional Court upheld that judgment. As to the applicant’s right to information about the child, it considered that, since the applicant was not the holder of parental responsibility, he could have been granted that right only within the framework of the determination of contact rights under Article 927 of the Civil Code. Moreover, given that the child did not demonstrate even a partially positive bond with the applicant and continued to reject him, the court did not find any other reason to conclude that providing the information to the applicant would be in the child’s best interests. 20. On 24 January 2023 a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court (I. ÚS 3463/22) found that the court decisions were duly reasoned and had taken account of all the relevant facts. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS
21. The legal parents’ marital crisis led to their divorce, which was finalised on 12 April 2022; the legal parents shared joint custody of the child and the family continued to live together. Subsequently, the mother moved out and resumed her relationship with the applicant, who thus had occasional contact with his son through her intermediary. 22. In proceedings for shared custody, brought in 2024 by the mother against the legal father, the child stated that he did not want to see his mother mainly because he feared the applicant. Eventually, the court decided to place the child into the custody of his legal father, with whom the child had a very strong bond. A subsequent application by the mother for contact rights was dismissed on the ground that she was unwilling to meet with her son without the presence of the applicant, towards whom the child still harboured negative emotions. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
THE CIVIL CODE (ACT No. 89/2012)
23. Article 927 of the Civil Code provides that persons having a close or distant family relationship with a child, as well as persons socially close to the child, have contact rights in respect of the child if the child has an emotional relationship with them that is not temporary and if it is clear that a lack of contact with those persons would cause harm to the child. The child also has the right to have contact with those persons if they agree to it. DOMESTIC CASE-LAW
24. In its decision no. 26 Co 171/2021 of 5 August 2021 the Hradec Králové Regional Court considered that since the parents’ mutual duty to provide information (withing the meaning of Article 890 of the Civil Code) represented a form of indirect (not personal) contact with the child, the law did not a priori exclude it in a case where the court prohibited personal contact between a parent and the child. When determining the extent and frequency of the provision of information about the child, the court had to take into account the circumstances of the case and always consider the best interests of the child. 25. In its judgment no. 24 Cdo 3032/2021 of 26 January 2021 the Supreme Court did not consider incorrect a court’s decision by which the court had suspended the father’s parental responsibility and dismissed his claim to be granted personal contact with his children but ordered the mother to provide the father regular information about their children. It observed that according to the doctrine the parents’ duty to provide information was a statutory obligation which formed a part of the right of contact with the child. Unlike the right of contact itself, which was realised through a mutual interaction between the parent and the child, the right to information could be viewed as contact only to a limited extent. The Supreme Court further noted that the provision of information about the child was also considered “contact” in Article 2 of the Convention on Contact concerning Children (“the Contact Convention”). 26. In its judgment no. II. ÚS 3122/16 of 16 May 2017 the Constitutional Court noted that in cases where paternity was determined by a legal presumption of marriage, the domestic law did not allow the (putative) biological father to challenge the paternity of the legal father. The issue of contact between the biological father and the child was thus fundamental. In line with the requirements stemming from the Court’s case-law, (putative) biological fathers had to have the possibility of establishing a relationship with their child, for example through contact rights granted under Article 927 of the Civil Code; indeed, they could not be completely excluded from the child’s life unless this was justified by important reasons grounded in the child’s best interests. 27. In its decision no. III. ÚS 1741/21 of 27 July 2021 concerning the refusal to grant contact rights in respect of a child to the mother’s former partner, the Constitutional Court emphasised that under Article 927 of the Civil Code the main determining factor was the child’s emotional bond with that person and not the emotional attachment of the latter. 28. In its judgments no. I. ÚS 1081/20 of 30 August 2021 and no. II. ÚS 395/22 of 28 July 2022, which concerned the contact rights of grandparents or other relatives, the Constitutional Court pointed to the need to examine the nature of the relationship between all the persons concerned and to the necessity of taking into account the best interests of the child, which could be undermined by, inter alia, the existence of tension, conflicts or strained relations between the child’s parents and the relatives seeking contact with the child. It held that, under normal circumstances, the views of the parents who have custody of the child must always be taken into account when determining contact rights of other persons. 29. In its decision no. II. ÚS 3224/20 of 7 February 2022 the Constitutional Court held that a biological father’s interest in having his contact rights determined by the court could not outweigh the best interests of the child. It expressed the view that a biological father’s interest was stronger if there was also a social bond between him and the child, if he had shown a genuine interest in the child in the past and if the relationship between him and the legal parents was free of conflict; in any case, however, the child’s best interests remained the primary consideration. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTSUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

30. The Convention on the Rights of the Child entered into force for the Czech Republic on 22 February 1993. The relevant parts read as follows:
Article 3
“1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
...”
Article 5
“States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.”
Article 7
“1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. 2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.”
Council of Europe Convention on Contact Concerning Children (“The Contact Convention” – CETS No. 192)
31. The Contact Convention entered into force in respect of the Czech Republic on 1 September 2005. Its object is to determine general principles to be applied to contact orders, to fix appropriate safeguards and guarantees to ensure the proper exercise of contact and the immediate return of children at the end of the period of contact and to establish cooperation between central authorities, judicial authorities and other bodies in order to promote and improve contact between children and their parents and other persons having family ties with children. 32. The relevant provisions read as follows:
Article 2 – Definitions
“For the purposes of this Convention:
A  ’contact’ means:
(i)  the child staying for a limited period of time with or meeting a person mentioned in Articles 4 or 5 with whom he or she is not usually living;
(ii)  any form of communication between the child and such person;
(iii)  the provision of information to such a person about the child or to the child about such a person.”
Article 4 – Contact between a child and his or her parents
“1. A child and his or her parents shall have the right to obtain and maintain regular contact with each other. 2. Such contact may be restricted or excluded only where necessary in the best interests of the child. 3. Where it is not in the best interests of a child to maintain unsupervised contact with one of his or her parents the possibility of supervised personal contact or other forms of contact with this parent shall be considered.”
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
33. The applicant complained, relying on Article 6 of the Convention and several provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, about the domestic courts’ refusal to grant him contact rights in respect of his son and the right to information about the latter. 34. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court finds it appropriate to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. The relevant provision reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ... 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The parties’ submissions
35. The applicant submitted that, although the Government had tried to depict him as being problematic and as the sole party responsible for the difficult relationship with his son, the Court should primarily examine the conduct of the domestic authorities and of the child’s legal parents. He argued that at the time when he could still meet with his son, he had been planning to live together with the child’s mother, his visits had gone well and a relationship based on trust had developed between them, which could be characterised as “family life”. The reversal of that situation had to be imputed to the legal parents, specifically to the change of attitude on the part of the mother, to which the courts had eventually reacted by depriving him of contact with and information about his son, without giving sufficient and relevant reasons for that interference. Indeed, strained relations between him and the child’s family could not be the primary reason to deny him his rights. 36. The applicant submitted that a fair balance between the interests of all the persons concerned had not been struck in the present case, due account had not been taken of the best interests of the child and of the latter’s right to know his parents, and the authorities had not taken all the measures that could reasonably be expected of them to secure the development of their relationship. In particular, the courts had not duly considered whether he might have been granted a separate right to information under Article 927 of the Civil Code, despite the fact that he was not the legal father with parental responsibility and had not been granted contact rights. The applicant maintained that there had been no reasons to deny him such a right. 37. The Government submitted that the applicant’s relationship with the child did not fall under the notion of “family life” since, until 2018, that is, until the child had reached the age of five, the applicant had seen him only occasionally and there had been no close personal ties between them. Subsequently, the child had developed a strongly negative attitude towards the applicant, which had been at least partly imputable to the latter’s behaviour. The Government did not dispute, however, that the courts’ refusal to grant the applicant contact rights and to impose on the child’s legal parents the duty to inform him about the child’s development had amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life. 38. The Government further asserted that, in the present case, the domestic courts had concluded that the conditions set out in Article 927 of the Civil Code, which allowed persons socially close to a child, including the biological father, to apply for contact rights, had not been met. In so doing, they had emphasised that the applicant’s son had been confronted, from an early age, with a complex relationship between his biological father (the applicant), his mother and his legal father, which had been marked by verbal and physical abuse and his legal parents’ marital crisis. Furthermore, both the applicant and the legal parents had ignored the courts’ calls to change their attitude and to seek professional help, and had continued to engage in conflicts, often in the child’s presence, thus behaving in a manner contrary to the child’s best interests. 39. The Government asserted that the domestic authorities had exercised due diligence and provided support for the applicant’s contact with his son by, inter alia, arranging for supervised contact and mediation. It had only been in 2020 (see paragraph 13 above), when the child’s negative response to the applicant and his poor psychological state had directly endangered his well-being, that the courts had found, after weighing the interests of all those involved, that there had been compelling reasons for not setting any contact regime until the situation had stabilised. Their decisions had thus been driven by the best interests of the child and had prioritised the need to ensure him a stable family environment and to improve his psychological condition. The Government emphasised in this connection that the child had been receiving psychological care since the age of four, that he had suffered from developmental delays and anxiety attacks and that all the experts involved had strongly advised against his being forced into seeing the applicant (the Government referred to Honner v. France, no. 19511/16, § 60, 12 November 2020). On the other hand, the courts had not excluded that contact arrangements could be revised at any time in future. 40. The Government further submitted that Article 927 of the Civil Code – referring to “contact” in general terms, which was to be interpreted pursuant to Article 2 (a) of the Contact Convention as also encompassing the provision of information about the child – provided for the possibility of being granted the right to information about the child, either in parallel with personal contact or in the course of direct communication with the child, in lieu of those forms of contact in the event that they had been deemed inappropriate in the particular circumstances of the case. They contended that due consideration had been given to the latter option in the present case. However, the courts had concluded that the same specific facts of the case which had led them to dismiss the applicant’s request for personal contact with the child had also been relevant and central to his right to be provided with information about the child. They had explicitly addressed that issue, adduced sufficient reasons for their decisions and provided the applicant with the necessary protection of his interests (the Government referred, by contrast, to Fröhlich v. Germany, no. 16112/15, § 66, 26 July 2018). 41. The Government added that the relationship between the applicant and the child’s legal parents, who would have had to bear the duty to provide him the information sought, had been marked by longstanding conflicts and that the applicant’s often inappropriate behaviour had indicated that he had rather been interested in resuming his relationship with the mother than in connecting with the child. There had thus been exceptional circumstances justifying the decision not to grant the applicant’s request since imposing on the legal parents the duty to inform him could have exacerbated their conflicts and disrupted the stability of the child’s family situation. Recent developments (see paragraph 21-22 above) had shown, nevertheless, that the mother had again been trying to involve the applicant in the child’s life and that the applicant had had access to information about the child through her intermediary.

Outcome for Article 8: no_violation