Notice of the judgment and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that were published in July 2024 against the Republic of Serbia

European Court for human rights (hereinafter: the Court) is in the period from 1 to 31In July 2024, he published 1 verdict i4 decisions against the Republic of Serbia.

Judgment in the caseKostićbrought by the Board. A violation of the rights of Article 8 of the Convention was establishedfor the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter: Convention).

All four decisions were also made by the Board. The court is in these four petition casesdeleted from the list of cases by accepting signed friendly settlements (Simeun Kalabić and 7 others, Dobra Šišović and 8 others, Agricultural cooperative Agroprom and 5 others. and Daniela Trivanović and 3 others).

And - JUDGMENT

Kostic against Serbia (number 31530/20, fromJuly 2, 2024)

The case refers to the non-enforcement of the applicant's right to contact with his son, as determined by a final judgment from 2009 (violation of rights from Article 8 of the Convention).

The Court supported the Constitutional Court's assessment that the competent domestic authorities failed to react quickly and appropriately in the case of the applicant, but also concluded that the amount of compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court in the name of compensation for non-material damage suffered by the applicant (EUR 1,200) was not can be considered adequate and sufficient.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicant is the father of a child born in 2003. The joint life of the applicant and the child's mother ended in 2009.

The Municipal Court in Velika Plana (hereinafter: Municipal Court) issued a judgment on February 20, 2009, which determined that the child lives with the mother, and that the father (applicant) periodically spends time with the child according to a predetermined schedule. The order for the execution of the aforementioned judgment was issued on June 15, 2009.

The mother of the applicant's child denied the applicant contact with the child. On this occasion, the applicant addressed the Municipal Court through 6 submissions in the period from July 6, 2009 to March 22, 2010, and in some of the aforementioned submissions, in addition to allowing contact with the child, he also requested that the child's mother be fined for his actions.

In the period from November 11, 2010 to October 10, 2013, the Center for Social Work submitted four reports to the Municipal Court, indicating that the child's mother interferes with contact between the child and the applicant, suggesting that the Municipal Court continue with the execution of the order for the sake of exercising rights of the applicant.

The municipal court imposed four fines on the mother of the applicant's child in the period from May 25, 2010 to July 14, 2014. The mentioned judgments were carried out in 2014.

The applicant had contact with the child on several occasions in the period from May 2014 to December 2015.

At the hearing on April 19, 2016, the child (aged 13 at that time) stated that he had no intention of maintaining contact with his father (the applicant).

The enforcement procedure was suspended on April 6, 2017.

On November 28, 2019, the Constitutional Court issued a decision in which it determined that the applicant's parental rights and right to a trial within a reasonable time were violated, and  awarded him the amount ofEUR 1,200.00 in compensation for non-material damages due to the violation of the (parent's) right to contact and due to the excessive duration of the enforcement procedure.

COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted a petition to the Court30. June 2020.

In the petition, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to respect for private and family life from Article 8 of the Convention, because due to the untimely and inappropriate actions of the domestic authorities, he was deprived of proper contact with his child, and thus of the effective exercise of his parental rights.

THE DECISION THE COURT

The Court took the position that the amount of non-material damages awarded at the domestic level cannot be considered adequate and sufficient to remove the applicant's victim status, since it is significantly lower than what the Court usually awards in similar cases against Serbia.

Consequently, the Court established a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)

The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 3,300.00 as compensation for non-material damage. 

II      DECISIONS

Cases in which friendly settlements were concluded(Simeun Kalabić and 7 others, number 21406/23,Dobra Šišović and 8 others, number 22049/23,Agricultural cooperative Agroprom and 5 others, number 22027/23andDaniela Trivanović and 3 others, number 37733/18) represent the well-established practice of the Court (so-calledWECL - well-established case-law), those settlements were concluded in order to reduce the total costs before the Court and consequently less payments from budget funds.

Two out of four subjectsin which friendly settlements were concluded refer to complaints regarding Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 with the Convention because non-execution of domestic decisions made against social/state enterprises. It's about objects Dobra Šišović and 8 others. and Agricultural cooperative Agroprom and 5 others. The mentioned cases follow the practice of the Court from the judgmentLilić et al. against Serbia(No. 16857/19 and 43001/19, dated January 14, 2021) according to which the duration of bankruptcy proceedings against social or state enterprises over one year is excessive.

SubjectSimeun Kalabić and 7 others. refers totrial within a reasonable time in enforcement proceedings that lasted from 10 to 12 years,while the subjectDaniela Trivanović and 3 others. refers to the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court (from 4 to 8 years).