X and Y v. Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 4. February 2025. brought the years, and 6. Marta announced the decision in case of the same year XandYagainst Serbia, No. 25384/18.

The decision is doneo The three-member committee.

Circumstances Case

Applicant x is 26. January 2010 filed the FIRST Basic Court in Belgrade's lawsuit with S. F. with a request to be granted exclusively custody ofY.

The first Basic Court in Belgrade is 19. January 2012. year, divorced the marriage between the first applicantX and S. F. and decided to be minorY (The second applicant) entrusts to the care of Mother S. F. which will independently perform parental right. The Court of Appeals in Belgrade is 12. December 2012. confirmed the first instance verdict, and the Supreme Court of Cassation was 14. November 2013. rejected the audit of the first applicant in 2013.

The first applicant was 21. March 2014. submitted a constitutional court against the final judgment, which entrusted his juvenile mother to his mother's mother, and in the name of his underworld. 23, 25. and 64. Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. The Constitutional Court rejected this constitutional complaint 21. December 2017. Asunfounded.

In the meantime, S. F. has accused several timesXfor violence overY, in mind the belittling of her in front of a child and convincing the child to speak that she is an irresponsible mother who does not take care of his needs.

The Social Service worker is 23. May 2014 visited the first applicant and observed his relationship with another applicant, as well as with his brother Z. B. with whom he lived in a joint household. By observation, it found that the second applicant was met with basic needs, but that he was exposed to emotional neglect and abuse. Also, the social service worker determined that the first applicant used my son to create loyalty conflict, not taking into account his need for peace and serenity in relation to both parents.

Based on the reports of the Worker Social Service, S. F. asked the first Basic Court in Belgrade to limit the contact between X and Y.

The first applicant is 4. November 2015 years requested to be the applicant Y entrusts to independently performing parental law.

The Judicial Commission of the Novi Sad Medical Faculty is 4. November 2015. passed a report stating that both parents do not have parental abilities. Experts concluded that the child should remain with his mother and continue to keep his contact with his father in the same way as until then. Experts suggested that both parents go to family therapy for six months.

By a judgment of 16. December 2017. It was ordered to reduce contact between X and Y, as well as that both parents visit the Marriage Counseling and the Center for Social Work to establish the necessary cooperation of parents.

The Court of Appeals in Belgrade is 16. May 2019. returned the case for re-deciding the third Basic Court in Belgrade, and banned X to further disturb S.Z. and Y.

BetweenY and his mothers came to the incident 21. March 2018 years, after which it wasX refused to return the child to her mother. The third basic court ordered him to do so 30. May and 31. October 2018, butX It didn't do that.

By decision of 10. July 2020. The court ordered X to return the Y his mother, when it wasX temporarily devoid of parental rights, and his contact with the child was suspended for six months.

The 3rd Basic Court in Belgrade is 10. February 2023. He deprived yearsX parental rights.

The first Basic Court in Belgrade is 23. October 2023. brought a temporary measure by which S. F. deprives parental rights.

YHe currently lives with his father's brother, Z. B., in Belgrade.

From 6. April 2010. until 21. March 2018. The first submitter regretted the domestic authorities several times that S. F. was physically and mentally abusedY. All criminal charges were rejected due to the lack of evidence. Criminal charges regarding the incident from 21. March 2018. year was discarded 10. July 2018 years due to lack ofCorpus Delicti.

Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures

The applicants submitted the application to the Court 24. May 2018. Years.

In the representations, they complained about the injuries of torture referred to in Article 6, and the right to respect for the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (hereinafter referred to in the custody of the custody, as well as the alleged failure of domestic authorities to protect the other applicant.

Decision Court

• Article 3 of the Convention

The applicants claimed that the authorities did not fulfill their obligation to conduct an effective investigation by the complainants of the first applicant that the other applicant was harassed by his mother.

The Court found that the competent state authorities immediately reacted to numerous complaints of the first applicant, that they examined both the applicants, the alleged perpetrator of the crime and witnesses, as well as considering all evidence.

In accordance with that, the Court found that there was nothing in the submitted material that would indicate that the authorities had ignored the seriousness of the allegations or that they performed their duties in a superficial way.

Following the present, the Court rejected the application in this part as apparently unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. st. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.

• Article 8 Convention

The applicants claimed that their right to respect for private and family life because domestic courts refused to give custodyXoverY.

The Court found that such a decision of the courts was interference in the right of the first applicant to respect his family life, that she had a basis in domestic law and that she sought a legitimate goal of protecting the child's rights.

The court noticed that domestic courts in their decisions emphasized the importance of the best interestY, as well as that the facts established based on submissions and detailed opinions of the expert. Therefore, the Court found that the procedural requirements of Article 8 were complied with. Of the Convention.

The Court also found that the decisions of domestic courts were not arbitrary or unreasonable, and that the reasons for domestic courts were relevant and sufficient within the boundaries of the country's free assessment field.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the application as apparently unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. st. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.

• Remaining complaints

The applicants also complained about the violation of the rights referred to in Article 6 of the Convention, considering that the procedure in which the guardianship was decided overY He was unfair and that the court experts were biased, as well as violating the rights referred to in Article 8. Convention in connection with the positive obligations of the state to protect the physical and mental integrity of the second applicant.

The Court stood on the point of view that the documentation submitted does not indicate any violation of the rights and freedoms determined by the Convention or Protocols with the same.

Therefore, the Court also rejected the application as apparently unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. st. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.