Published on 7 February 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 7921/20M.G.against Denmarklodged on 8 January 2020communicated on 20 January 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the lack of an oral hearing in proceedings on child maintenance payments.
The applicant divorced in 2012 and agreed to pay a certain fixed sum in child maintenance for his four children.
In November 2017 he requested, among other things, that the sum be reduced because his net income had decreased since July 2017. He also had three more children to support.
His request was refused by the Agency of Family Law (Statsforvaltningen) on 29 June 2018, finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate that the oral agreement on child maintenance payments had been limited in time.
The applicant appealed against the decision to the National Social Appeals Board (Ankestyrelsen) maintaining, inter alia, that twice he had refused to sign draft agreements due to their long duration, namely in 2013 and 2017, notably because he could not expect to maintain the good level of income he had at the time. Moreover, it should not be held against him that he had continued to pay the original amount until November 2017.
By virtue of acts nos. 1702 and 1711 of 27 December 2018, on 1 April 2019 the appeal proceedings were transferred to the Family Court (Familieretten).
In his pleadings of 20 May 2019 the applicant requested that an oral hearing be held, with a view to hearing the parties about their agreement.
On 9 July 2019 the Family Court decided to apply the so-called simplified procedure (forenklede familiesagsproces), entailing that the dispute be decided on the basis of the case file. The judgment was to be passed three days later, on 12 July 2020. On the latter date, the Family Court upheld the decision of the National Social Appeals Board.
Published on 7 February 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 7921/20M.G.against Denmarklodged on 8 January 2020communicated on 20 January 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the lack of an oral hearing in proceedings on child maintenance payments.
The applicant divorced in 2012 and agreed to pay a certain fixed sum in child maintenance for his four children.
In November 2017 he requested, among other things, that the sum be reduced because his net income had decreased since July 2017. He also had three more children to support.
His request was refused by the Agency of Family Law (Statsforvaltningen) on 29 June 2018, finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate that the oral agreement on child maintenance payments had been limited in time.
The applicant appealed against the decision to the National Social Appeals Board (Ankestyrelsen) maintaining, inter alia, that twice he had refused to sign draft agreements due to their long duration, namely in 2013 and 2017, notably because he could not expect to maintain the good level of income he had at the time. Moreover, it should not be held against him that he had continued to pay the original amount until November 2017.
By virtue of acts nos. 1702 and 1711 of 27 December 2018, on 1 April 2019 the appeal proceedings were transferred to the Family Court (Familieretten).
In his pleadings of 20 May 2019 the applicant requested that an oral hearing be held, with a view to hearing the parties about their agreement.
On 9 July 2019 the Family Court decided to apply the so-called simplified procedure (forenklede familiesagsproces), entailing that the dispute be decided on the basis of the case file. The judgment was to be passed three days later, on 12 July 2020. On the latter date, the Family Court upheld the decision of the National Social Appeals Board.
The applicant requested leave to appeal and relied on Article 6 of the Convention. His request was refused by the Appeals Permission Board (Procesbevillingsnævnet) on 9 September 2019.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings before the Family Court, despite the fact that his request for an oral hearing was refused? (see, for exemple, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal ([GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 187 et seq., 6 November 2018).
