Davidovic v. Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: The Court) is 4. Ferbuara 2025. brought, and 4. Marta announced the judgment in the case in the same yearDavidovic against Serbia, No. 46198/18.
The verdict isdoneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the delayed execution of the final judgment adopted in favor of the applicant in the process of committing custody of the child. The Court supported the assessment of the Constitutional Court to respond appropriately in the applicant's case, but also concluded that the amount of compensation made at the domestic level due to the excessive length of the proceedings (EUR 500) cannot be considered appropriate and sufficient. |
Circumstances Case
Applicant and F. A. They have one child, born 23. November 2011. years. After their divorce, a judgment of 25. March 2013. year, the independent conduct of the child was assigned to the applicant. This judgment became the final 10. July 2013. years.
First instance court in Požarevac - Judicial Unit in Žagubica (hereinafter: the first instance court) is 18. November 2013. determined the execution of this judgment.
Attempts to execution in the premises of the Center for Social Work 26. February and 14. March 2014. They were unsuccessful, because, according to the Trial Court, the case files were not available. Execution is therefore delayed by 2. April 2014 years. This attempt was also unsuccessful, since F. A. was not properly invited.
Execution was attempted in the House of F. A. With the presence of the psychologist of the Center for Social Work and with the help of the police, 22. April, 22. May and 15. July 2014 years. None of these attempts were successful, because the child was not in the father's house F.A.
The Trial Court is 21. July 2014. F. A executive debtor. Prison sentence that will last until the borrower is acted on the court's order, and a maximum of 60 days. By 5. March 2015 he is not a punishment punishment.
Execution during 2015. year unsuccessfully attempted to March 21. April and 10. September, because Baba and grandfather took a child every time a child was sentenced to 3. April 2015 years due to disabling the implementation of execution.
The Executive Creditor, here, in the meantime, submitted a request for the protection of the right to trial within a reasonable time, which was adopted by the decision of the High Court in Požarevac. The mentioned decision was ordered to end the Court to end the request in question as soon as possible, and the child's mother was awarded a fair violation of the right of 500 euros, in dinar equivalent.
Another execution attempt was unsuccessful 24. December 2015. year, after which the Center for Social Work was submitted by the Report to the Trial Court, stating that the child's confiscation would not be in his best interest. Based on this report, the first instance court is 14. March 2016. suspended the execution procedure.
At the request of the applicant, it was 12. April 2017 years ordered further execution. Date of F. A is given to voluntarily passing the child within three days. After F. A. refused to do so, the Center for Social Work was reported by the first instance court, claiming that revocation of the child is the most appropriate way to execute the judgment.
The verdict was finally executed 14. November 2017 years.
The Constitutional Court is 25. January 2018 broughtdecision In addition to other things, he adopted the Constitutional Appeal to the applicant and found a violation of the rights referred to in Article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. The applicant's request for compensation for intangible damage was rejected because it was The Constitutional Court assessed that, in this particular case, the violation of the right is sufficient to achieve adequate and fair satisfaction of the applicant, taking into account that it was awarded the amount of EUR 500 in the name of the excessive duration of the execution procedure.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted court 21. September 2018. Years.
In the representations, she complained about the violation of the right to respect for private and family life from Article 8. Conservations of the Kosovo Beneficiary, as well as the Constitutional Court refused to assign the compensation for the incurerial damage.
Decision Court
The Court took the position that the amount of intangible damage to the domestic level could not be considered appropriate and sufficient to remove the victim status, as it is significantly lower than the court usually judges in similar cases against Serbia.
Consequently, the Court determined a violation of Article 8. Of the Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 4,000.00 euros in the name of intangible damage.