Skip to main content

Slaviša SIMETIĆ

Country
Србија
Importance level
3
Language
Serbian
Panel of Judges
Committee (3)
Judgment Date
Date of Application
Keywords/Articles
(Čl. 8) Pravo na poštovanje privatnog i porodičnog života (N/A)
(Čl. 35-3-a) Zloupotreba prava na predstavku (N/A)
Application Numbers
27296/22
Verdict/resolution view

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is15. made on October 2024, and on November 7 of the same year announced the decision in the caseSimetic against Serbia, number 27296/22.

It's a decisionbroughto three-member Board.

The case refers to the failure of domestic authorities to enforce a legally binding judgment regulating the model of maintaining personal relations between the applicant and his minor children.

The applicant complained about the violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The Court rejected the application, assessing that it was an abuse of the right to submit an individual application, since the applicant failed to inform the Court about important decisions of domestic courts relevant to the case itself.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

On May 27, 2016, the First Basic Court in Belgrade issued a verdict which, among other things,edited the model of maintaining personal relations between the applicant and his minor children, born in 2006 and 2008. The aforementioned part of the verdict became legally binding on July 13 of the same year 2016, and was executed on July 10 of the following year.

Although the competent court and other authorities undertook a number of different activities during the enforcement procedure, contact between the applicant and his minor children was not established.

The Constitutional Court found on two occasions that the applicant's right from Article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia was violated (Už-14395/2018 andUž-8266/2020) and established his right to compensation for non-material damage in the total amount of 1,500 euros. The stated amount was paid to the applicant by the Ministry of Justice.

In addition to filing a constitutional appeal, the applicant, in order to protect the right to a trial within a reasonable time, also used other legal means prescribed by law - an objection to speed up the procedure (three objections, all three accepted) and a lawsuit for monetary compensation (three lawsuits, one of which legally ended and he was awarded the amount of 700 euros for legal default interest and the costs of the procedure, according to the second it was terminated without legal effect and he was awarded the amount of 2,000 euros with legal default interest, and according to the third it is ongoing).

COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on May 25, 2022.

In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to respect for private and family life from Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), claiming that he was deprived of contact with his children and the opportunity to effectively exercise parental rights due to failure of domestic authorities to implement the court ruling of May 27, 2016.

THE DECISION THE COURT

The government pointed out that the applicant, before his petition was delivered to it, failed to inform the Court about the proceedings he initiated to protect the right to a trial within a reasonable time and suggested that his petition be dismissed.

The applicant did not dispute the said omission, but argued that it was not relevant.

After examining the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind that the applicant is not before the Court delivered information about the proceedings initiated at the domestic level and their outcomes before the Government received notification of the submitted application, which represents the very essence of the case, the Court found that such behavior of the applicant contradicts the purpose of the right to an individual application.

Therefore it isThe court made a decision to declare the petition of the applicant inadmissible due to abuse of the right to an individual petition, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.

Related cases/References
Decisions made at the domestic level which preceded the application to the ECHR
Supervision
Specific Measures
General Measures
Action Plan/Report
CM Decisions
Final Resolution