CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 décembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 81 December 2005 Karadžić v. Croatia - 35030/04 Judgment 15.12.2005 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Insufficient efforts seeking to reunite child and parent with sole custody under foreign law: violation   Facts : The applicant, a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, lives in Germany, where she has sole custody of her son, born out of wedlock in 1995. The father of the child, Ž.P., moved to Croatia in 1999, whereas the applicant continued living with their son in Germany. On a visit to Croatia in 2000, Ž.P. prevented the applicant from taking their son back to Germany. She managed to take him back the following year but shortly thereafter Ž.P. took him back to Croatia. In the meantime, a German district court issued a decision confirming that Ž.P.’s decision to keep the child in Croatia had been “wrongful” within the meaning of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. At the applicant’s request, the German Chief Federal Prosecutor contacted the Croatian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. Five months later, in October 2001, the local welfare centre in Croatia instituted proceedings for the child’s return to Germany. In May 2003 a Croatian municipal court ordered that the child be returned to his mother but attempts to enforce the decision proved unsuccessful as the child could not be located. The court requested the police authorities to provide information on the whereabouts of the child and his father on three occasions and imposed sanctions on Ž.P. for failing to comply with the court order. In September 2004, when three police officers, a court bailiff and the applicant’s lawyer went to Ž.P.’s home, he refused to hand over the child and used force in fleeing the premises, taking his son with him. He was subsequently taken into custody but managed to escape after being transferred to a hospital. At a hearing in February 2005 the municipal court terminated the enforcement proceedings, having been informed by the applicant’s lawyer that the child had been returned to his mother. The applicant, however, submitted that she had known nothing of that hearing and that her son had not been returned to her. Law : Article 8   –   The Court found that the Croatian authorities had taken insufficient action to facilitate the execution of the order issued by the domestic court in May 2003 and that there were substantial periods of delay for which the Government had not produced any convincing explanation. In particular, the Court noted that the police had not shown the necessary diligence in locating Ž.P. and had allowed him to escape their custody. Furthermore, the only sanction used against Ž.P. had been the imposition of a fine and a detention order, neither of which appeared to have been enforced. The passage of time and the change of circumstances engendered irreparable consequences on the relationship between a child and parent living apart, and imposed an obligation on the authorities to act swiftly. The authorities had failed however to make adequate and effective efforts to reunite the applicant with her son. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a certain amount for costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes