FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CÎNȚA v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 3891/19)
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
Article 8 • Respect for family life • Restriction on applicant’s contact rights based on his mental disorder, without assessing the latter’s impact on his caring skills or child’s safety • Lack of assessment of child’s best interests or applicant’s current state of health
Article 14 • Discrimination • No convincing reasons from the respondent State to rebut the presumption of discrimination

 
STRASBOURG
18 February 2020
 
FINAL
 
18/06/2020
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Cînța v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
 Georges Ravarani,
 Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Marcel Dan Cînța (“the applicant”), on 9 January 2019;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations,
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2019 and 28 January 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last‑mentioned date:
INTRODUCTION
The application concerns restrictions placed by the courts on the applicant’s contact rights in respect of his four-year-old daughter during divorce and custody proceedings. The applicant alleged that his mental illness had played a significant role in that restriction, even though there had been no evidence before the courts that he would pose a threat to his daughter’s well-being. THE FACTS
1. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Baia Mare. He was represented before the Court by Ms I.-R. Muscan, a lawyer practising in Baia Mare. 2. The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms S.-M. Teodoroiu, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. In 2007 the applicant married Ms X. They had met earlier that year when they were both patients in the Cavnic psychiatric hospital. In 2014 the couple had a daughter, Y. They lived together until 14 June 2018 when X moved out of the family home and took Y with her. On 26 June 2018 X filed for divorce. 5. At the time of the couple’s separation, the applicant was not working and was receiving a disability pension. X was working as a school teacher and deputy-headmistress. At that time, she was no longer registered as suffering from mental illness. 6. Since the couple’s separation, X has opposed any contacts, be they direct or via telephone, between the applicant and the child. He was able to see his daughter on only one occasion, on 5 July 2018, for half an hour. 7. On 30 July 2018 the applicant lodged an action for an interim injunction (ordonanţă preşedenţială) with the Baia Mare District Court. He requested that, during the divorce proceedings, the child be returned to the family home to live with him, as she had done since her birth. Alternatively, he requested that the court establish a contact schedule so that he could spend time with the child in his home, every Tuesday and Thursday from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and every other week from 6 p.m. on Fridays to 6 p.m. on Sundays. 8. On 8 August 2018 X acquiesced to allow the applicant contact with their daughter but only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, in public places and in her presence. She further requested that the court set the child’s residence with her during the divorce proceedings and order the applicant to contribute to the child’s financial needs. X explained that she had left the family home with the child because the applicant, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, had been physically and psychologically aggressive towards her, sometimes even in their child’s presence. X claimed that the applicant had also been abusive towards their daughter, telling her on several occasions that he did not need her love. She also claimed that, because of the applicant’s illness, he had never been left alone with the child. Either she or the child’s maternal grandmother had always been present. 9. The District Court examined the parents’ psychiatric records (the applicant’s most recent internment, at his wife’s request, having been from 6 to 25 April 2017 in the psychiatric ward of Sighetul Marmaţiei municipal hospital). 10. The court also heard evidence from the child’s grandmothers and X’s maternal aunt. The maternal aunt declared that, having known the applicant since he had married her niece, she had the impression that he had always tried to control his wife and to have the last word in any discussion. X’s mother declared that she had been taking care of Y in the applicant’s home since X had returned to work at the end of her maternity leave. When Y had reached the age of two, the applicant had forbidden her from having contact with the child, alleging that she had been “abusing” Y. She further declared that, in her opinion, the child would not be safe with her father, not even for a few days, because of his illness. The applicant’s mother declared that the applicant had been taking care of Y since her birth and the relationship between father and child had always been excellent. She had not witnessed or heard of any aggressive behaviour in the family. 11. In addition, the court received a report from the Baia Mare Directorate General for Social Welfare and Child Protection (“the child‑protection authority”) concerning the material conditions offered by each parent for raising the child. The child-protection authority conducted interviews with the parents and examined their domestic environments. It concluded as follows:
“Following the assessment undertaken, it is concluded that the parents are separated and the tensions between them make any civilised communication aimed at correctly handling the child’s situation impossible. The child is healthy and well taken care of by the mother and the maternal grandmother. The child is four years old and has developed an attachment with all the adults in her life (parents, grandparents).

Outcome for Article 8: violation