Facts
R. O., a Swiss citizen, and I. O., initially of Turkish nationality and naturalized Swiss in 1991, were married on October 25, 1985 in Rhäzüns. Two daughters were born of this union, S., born on January 15, 1986, and F., born on October 22, 1993. On April 10, 1995, R. O. filed a divorce petition with the mediation office of the district of Rhäzüns, with a settlement of the ancillary consequences. By judgment of November 15, 1995, the District Court of Imboden granted the divorce, placed the two daughters under the parental authority of the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to pay a monthly maintenance contribution of 500 francs per child, plus child allowances. Furthermore, it granted him the right to visit his daughters on the first Sunday of each month for three hours. The court also instructed the competent guardianship authority to organize the accompaniment of the visits during the first twelve months following the divorce, to be informed of the course of each visit, and, on the basis of these reports, to decide at that time on a possible extension of this measure or other measures for the protection of the child, or to file a request with the court. The defendant filed a cantonal appeal, requesting that he be granted the right to take his daughters S. and F. every first weekend of the month from Saturday noon to Sunday evening and in addition for three weeks of vacation per year. However, the Cantonal Court of Grisons dismissed the appeal by judgment of March 26, 1996 and confirmed the contested judgment. The defendant then filed a federal law appeal with the Federal Tribunal, repeating the same conclusions as before the second instance.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal partially grants the appeal, to the extent that it enters into the matter, and remands the case to the previous instance for supplementation of the facts and a new decision. The Federal Tribunal considers that the previous instance has severely restricted the personal relations of the defendant with his two children, by granting him only a right of visit limited to three hours per month and accompanied, and by refusing him any right of visit during the vacations. The defendant alleges a violation of Art. 156 in conjunction with Art. 273 CC and also a violation of Art. 8 ECHR. The Federal Tribunal notes that the refusal or withdrawal of the right to personal relations under Art. 274 para. 2 CC, as well as the establishment of a supervised right of visit, require concrete indications of a threat to the child's well-being. A mere abstract fear of an…