Miroslava Lazic v. Serbian
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 17. June 2025. brought, and 10. July 2025. published a decision in case Lazic v. Serbia, No. 15535/23.
The decision isbroughtThe three-member committee.
Item refers to the process of adopting a minorX Whose foster and guardian was the applicant and the inability to contact betweenX And the applicants, and the lack of a remedy with that in a relationship. The court declared the application inadmissible. |
Circumstances Case
It was 2014. It became a foster and legal guardian X and Y, brothers and sisters per mother, who at that time they had 10 months and seven years. In early 2018 (21. February) X was adopted by the Swedish family and left Serbia. The applicant was familiar with.
Dana 9. December 2019, as its legal guardian, as a lawsuit of the Basic Court in order to adopt the adoption of her child's interest because he was interrupted between his mother's brother and sibling. When terminating the accommodation X in its foster family, various illegality made. The Basic Court in Novi Sad is 22. October 2020 passed a judgment who rejected the adoption of adoption, while the Court of Court in Novi Sad rejected the applicant's appeal. The applicant subsequently submitted a proposal for the repetition of the proceedings, which was denied by the decision of the Basic Court in Novi Sad of 24. June 2024. years.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted 7. December 2022. Years.
Referring to Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that adoption and subsequent lack of contact withX injured her right to respect family life. Furthermore, referring to Article 6 of the Convention, claimed that the shortcomings in the adoption procedure and in the subsequent procedure for the adoption violated its right to access the Court and a fair trial. Finally, referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that these shortcomings were deprived of an effective legal remedy for achieving its complaints under Article 8. Convention.
Decision Court
Complaints the applicant for her lawsuit for the annulment of adoption X was not fair (Article 6 of the Convention), the Court rejected asRatione Personae incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, as it was not a party in the proceedings already submitted the lawsuit on behalf of Y, SistersX.
Next, the Court is the complainant of the applicant that she had no contact with X after it was21. February 2018. year adopted (Article 8 of the Convention) dismissed as untimely (if The law of adoption of adoption X was not a legal remedy that needs to be exhausted), as the applicant submitted 7. December 2022.
Finally, the complainants did not have an effective remedy in relation to their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention (Article 13 of the Convention), the Court is rejected as clearly unfounded (if The law is a lawsuit for the adoption X was an effective remedy), ie untimely (if such a lawsuit was not a legal remedy that needs to be exhausted).
Consequently, the Court declared the applicant's application inadmissible.