CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29048B37 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sEBD403DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE32676A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD5ABD84E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB2AEA4 { width:160.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIRST SECTION CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA (Applications nos. 27746/22 and 28291/22)   JUDGMENT Art 8 • Family life • Removal of the applicant children from the first applicant, their mother, and the discontinuation of contact between them with the aim of preventing alienation from their father • Removal order not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons in breach of the applicant children’s rights • Higher courts’ failure to review whether the order was Convention compliant • Domestic courts’ judgment and interim orders discontinuing contact between the applicants not justified by sufficient reasons • Failure to carry out an in-depth examination of the entire family situation, to evaluate the impact of the discontinuation of contact on the children and to consider other suitable and less severe measures • Domestic courts’ failure to ensure proper representation of the applicant children’s interests during the contact and custody proceedings Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Assignment of the applicants’ case to a particular judge in flagrant violation of domestic legislation and the Judicial Order • Criteria applied in the assignment neither set out in the relevant domestic law nor foreseeable on any other grounds • Case assigned contrary to objective pre-established criteria and in defiance of the domestic law’s clear purpose to ensure randomness in the assignment of cases • Very essence of the first applicant’s right to a “tribunal established by law” undermined • Domestic courts’ review of the assignment did not adhere to Convention standards   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 19 December 2024   FINAL   19/03/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of X and Others v. Slovenia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Marko Bošnjak,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Frédéric Krenc , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: applications nos.   27746/22 and 28291/22 against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the first applicant (X) and her three children (the second, third and fourth applicants), on 1 and 8 June 2022 respectively; the decision to give notice to the Slovenian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant children’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention regarding their forcible removal based on the removal order of 16   March 2020, the first applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention concerning the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, who was granted leave to intervene by the Vice-President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 26 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the removal of the first applicant’s children (“the applicant children”) from the first applicant (their mother) and the discontinuation of contact between them, which were allegedly in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. It also concerns the reassignment of the case to which the first applicant was a party to a particular judge, which was allegedly in breach of the first applicant’s right to be heard by a tribunal established by law (Article   6   §   1 of the Convention). THE FACTS 2.     The first applicant, born in 1976, lodged the applications on both her own and her children’s behalf. The applicants were represented by Mr   B.   Žibret, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Morela, Senior State Attorney. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     The first applicant and Y have three children: a son (the second applicant) born in 2011, and two daughters (the third and fourth applicants) born in 2014. In 2018 the first applicant and Y separated. Both filed petitions for divorce and custody of the children. Following the separation, the relationship between the first applicant and her husband was highly conflictual, which made it very difficult and often impossible for them to agree on contact and custody arrangements and the implementation thereof, and other practical issues. Apart from the courts, two welfare centres (hereinafter referred to without distinction as “the welfare centre”) and various experts were engaged in the proceedings. 6.     The first applicant and Y used many remedies, and also lodged many applications during the impugned domestic proceedings (i) requesting interim orders, (ii) disputing court decisions, applications lodged by the other party, and the welfare centre’s or experts’ opinions, and (iii) requesting that the other parent be fined for his or her failure to comply with court orders. They also lodged numerous criminal complaints, making accusations of, inter alia , child abduction and child neglect. The first applicant also lodged criminal complaints against Judge P. (who had been dealing with the applicants’ case), accusing her of, inter alia , abusing her position and mishandling the case. It would appear that none of these complains resulted in any conviction. Moreover, the first applicant repeatedly requested that Judge P. be recused from the proceedings. 7.     Given that the case file is very large the description below is limited to the most significant developments relevant for the consideration of the applications.   PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF THE APPLICANT CHILDREN ON 17 MARCH 2020 8 .     Following the family breakup in 2018, the applicant children (then four and seven years old respectively) remained living with the first applicant and were to have regular contact with Y on the basis of an interim order issued by the Ljubljana District Court – sitting as a single judge (Judge H.) – on 20   September 2018. This order essentially accorded with the proposal set out in a report issued by the welfare centre to which the case had been allocated. The order also set out that a fine of 200 euros (EUR) should be imposed in the event of non-compliance. 9 .     On 22 January 2019 the welfare centre informed the court that it had received numerous complaints from Y about the first applicant’s alleged preventing or obstructing his contact with the applicant children. It emphasised the conflictual nature of the relationship between the first applicant and Y and proposed that the court (i) order that the parents undergo obligatory counselling aimed at helping them cope with the family breakup (ii) appoint experts, and (iii) request the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter “the Ombudsman”) to appoint an “advocate for children” ( zagovornik otroka – see paragraph 99 below). On the same day the Ljubljana District Court appointed an expert psychiatrist (“expert B”) and clinical psychologist (“expert M”) to prepare a report in respect of the case. 10 .     In applications that she lodged with the District Court, the first applicant disagreed with the welfare centre’s proposals. Y on the other hand agreed that an “advocate for children” be appointed for the applicant children. The first applicant objected – unsuccessfully – to the appointment of expert   B and did not attend an examination by expert M to which she had been summoned. 11 .     In the meantime, the first applicant requested the District Court to order that Y have no contact with the applicant children because she believed, inter alia , that he lacked empathy and that contact with him had been harmful for the applicant children. On 1 April 2019 the Ljubljana District Court dismissed her request. Subsequently, Judge H., who had been in charge of the proceedings, was assigned to work at the Supreme Court. 12 .     On 18 April 2019, the President of the Ljubljana District Court ordered that the family-related pending cases of Judge H. (twenty-one cases) be assigned to the judge who had on 16   April 2019 (the day on which the proposal for redistribution had been made by the head of the relevant court division) the lowest number of unresolved cases of this type compared to other judges. He noted that this reassignment was meant to ensure an equal distribution of caseloads amongst the judges and equal protection of the rights of participants in family ‑ related proceedings. The case was allocated to Judge   P. The first applicant’s representative was informed of the President of the Ljubljana District Court’s decree on 2 August 2019. In the meantime, on 25   April 2019 the President of the Ljubljana District Court issued a separate decree for redistribution of Judge H.’s cases which related to (other) civil law disputes (forty-six cases). As regards the latter decree, it included an instruction that the cases assigned to Judge H. be redistributed to judges whose pending caseloads were at or below the average, and to those judges who had experienced a lower influx of new cases. The assignment of cases to the aforementioned category of judges, employed as criteria, inter alia , the alphabetical orders of parties’ names and those of the judges. 13 .     On 11 October 2019 the welfare centre submitted its report, in which it noted that there was evidence that the first applicant had been preventing contact between Y and the applicant children and that her conduct fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 141 (7) of the Family Code (see paragraph 97 below). 14 .     Y repeatedly informed the District Court that he believed that the first applicant had been manipulating the applicant children, had been trying to alienate them from him and had obstructed contact between them and him – often not directly but by creating situations that made it difficult or impossible for Y to pick the children up. Following the first hearing held by the District Court on 17 October 2019, Y proposed that he be granted the sole custody of the applicant’s children. 15 .     On 8 November 2019 the Ljubljana District Court – sitting as a single judge (Judge P.) – issued an interim order giving provisional custody of the applicants’ children to Y, finding that the first applicant had obstructed the execution of the applicant children’s contact with their father and had sought to alienate them from him. It observed that the latter could cause irreparable damage to the applicant children, for whom contact with Y had been shown to be in their interests. The District Court noted that the first applicant had obstructed the taking of expert evidence because she, unlike Y, had consistently failed to attend an interview with expert M (who had therefore been unable to prepare a report on the matter). The first applicant was allowed unsupervised contact with the children every other weekend and Wednesday. The court also ruled that a fine of EUR 500 would be imposed on either parent in the event that he or she failed to comply with the set arrangements. On 28   November 2019 the first applicant lodged an appeal and an objection against the interim order; both the appeal and the complaint were dismissed by the Ljubljana Higher Court in a decision of 16 June 2020. 16 .     On 20 December 2019 Y requested the District Court to order that the first applicant have contact with the children only under supervision and that the children be moved, respectively to a school or nursery in Y’s town, alleging that the first applicant was continuing to manipulate the applicant children against him and that the first applicant was not complying with the provisional contact arrangements. On 28 January 2020 the welfare centre submitted a report supporting Y’s request. It noted that the first applicant had often breached the contact arrangements by collecting the third and fourth applicant from their nursery earlier than scheduled. It further observed that Y and the first applicant continued to have a highly conflictual relationship and proposed that the children be appointed an “advocate for children”, in whom they could confide. The welfare centre also opined that if either parent were to breach the visiting arrangements, he or she should be fined. 17 .     On 12 February 2020 the Ljubljana District Court decided that the first applicant should be allowed to have visiting rights for one hour weekly under the supervision of the welfare worker and that the applicant children be registered at the nursey and school in Y’s town. It also stated that it would impose a fine of EUR   500 for any instance of non-compliance. 18 .     On 21 February 2020 Y lodged submissions with the court stating that the applicant children had continued to stay with the first applicant, and that he had been only able to see them rarely – despite the court decisions giving him custody of the children. He requested that the applicant children be physically removed from the first applicant so that they would live with him in accordance with the interim order (see paragraph 15 above). On the same day the first applicant requested that she be granted physical custody of the children. 19 .     It would appear that despite the above-mentioned submissions of Y, the applicant children did at some point return to Y. On 5 March 2020 supervised contact between the first applicant and the applicant children took place. At the end of the visit, the applicant children expressed their wish to remain with their mother, were upset and crying, and resisted going home with Y; this resulted in the first applicant taking the children with her to her own home. The welfare workers noted in the record of the contact visit that they had been unable to convince the children to go with Y, and that the situation (which had lasted about one hour) had been extremely intense and stressful for the applicant children. 20 .     On 10 March 2020 a second supervised contact visit between the first applicant and the applicant children took place. The record of the contact indicates the following. At the end of the contact the applicant children surrounded the first applicant and held onto her while she was moving towards the exit. The care workers advised the mother to calm the applicant children down, but she started filming the situation with her mobile phone. The second applicant at some point ran away and the care workers asked the parents to go after him. Y refused, referring to the fact that he was “on sick leave”. The first applicant went after the second applicant, followed by the remaining two applicant children. It is not clear from the case file what happened after that; however, it would appear that at some point the applicant children returned to the first applicant. In their record of the contact visit, the care workers noted their view that: the transfer of the children from the first applicant to Y had caused severe emotional stress for the children; the parents had been incapable of conducting the transfer; the first applicant had attributed the failure of the transfer to the children, who had been clinging onto her; neither of the parents had exercised the authority and decisiveness necessary to carry out the transfer; and the first applicant had lacked any emotional response during the situation, while Y had exhibited anxiety and helplessness. 21.     On 11 March 2020 the welfare centre issued a report in which it noted that its workers had conducted an unannounced visit to Y’s home. They observed that Y had been taking proper care of the applicant children. The report also noted that each of the parents believed that the other parent had personality disorders that rendered him/her unsuitable for parenting. In the welfare centre’s view, experts should be asked to assess these concerns. 22 .     On 16 March 2020 the Ljubljana District Court refused the first applicant’s request for custody of the applicant children (see paragraph 18 above) and discontinued, by way of an interim order, any contact between them until further notice. It noted, inter alia , that the applicant children’s intense reactions and resistance to going with Y resulted from their deep anxiety and the first applicant’s active attempts to alienate them from Y. The court deemed that the first applicant was to blame for the situation and for the stress endured by the applicant children. An appeal lodged by the first applicant was rejected by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 16 June 2020. The latter court endorsed the reasons of the Ljubljana District Court for its decision and found that the first applicant’s right to a family life had to give way to the applicant children’s best interests. It also took note of the first applicant’s failure to attend the interview with the expert M, which had impeded the preparation of the expert report. Referring to, inter alia , A.V. v.   Slovenia , no. 878/13, 9 April 2019, it saw no obstacles for the first instance court to issue an interim decision ordering the parents to undergo family therapy, provided that the experts consider this necessary for the protection of the children’s interest. 23 .     On the same day, the Ljubljana District Court also ruled that the order of 8 November 2019 (see paragraph 15 above) should be enforced by removing the applicant children from the first applicant, with the execution to be carried out by a bailiff (hereinafter “the removal order”). It noted that the first applicant had been preventing contact between Y and the applicant children by, for instance, collecting them from school or nursery at a time earlier than that scheduled, and that she had taken them to her own home after supervised visits. The court considered that the first applicant was trying to alienate the applicant children from Y, was causing them stress and was harming their development. The court designated a bailiff to carry out the removal in the presence of care workers. 24 .     The first applicant lodged repeated objections – including extraordinary objections ( ugovor po izteku roka ) – regarding the removal order, which she claimed was illegal, a result of Judge P.’s improper conduct and against the children’s best interests. On 14 January 2021 the Ljubljana District Court dismissed one of her objections, finding that she had clearly demonstrated that she would not comply with the court’s order and that forcing her to comply by way of imposing monetary fines would be ineffective and would only delay the measure – which was aimed at protecting the children’s interests. The first applicant appealed arguing, inter alia , that: the applicant children were enduring torture as a result of the removal order; the removal order did not cite any reasons justifying the removal measure; the best interests of the children had been ignored; the court had not considered less severe and more humane measures; and she had not been given a realistic chance to fulfil her obligation to transfer the children. Her appeal was rejected by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 8 March 2021. The Ljubljana Higher Court noted that in November 2020 a special protocol had been prepared concerning removals of children, in order to minimise the negative impact of such measure on them. However, in the Higher Court’s opinion, the question of whether a removal order was justified and lawful was unrelated to the manner of enforcement and the circumstances related thereto. It noted that the removal order in respect of the instant case had had a proper legal basis, which had not required that less severe measures first be exhausted. While the District Court could have taken less severe measures, it had not acted against the law by ordering the applicant children’s removal. The removal order in itself did not imply that its execution would be traumatic for the children. The Higher Court further noted that the valid interim custody order in question was not being respected by the first applicant. It therefore found unsubstantiated the argument that she had not been given an opportunity to comply with that custody order. The Higher Court also noted that an objection against the removal order did not have suspensive effect and found that there had been no obstacle to enforcing the order before it became final. 25.     Appeals concerning certain other unsuccessful objections against the removal order were rejected by a decision of 10 July 2023 (see paragraph 66 below), in which the Ljubljana Higher Court found that the disputed decisions had a proper legal basis. THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN ON 17   MARCH 2020 26 .     The removal of the applicant children (who were at that point six and eight years old) from the first applicant was carried out on 17 March 2020, by a bailiff, starting at around 12.00 a.m. Four welfare workers were present at the scene. As the first applicant, according to the police report, did not “voluntarily fulfil the obligations set out in [...] the decision of 8 November 2019”, the bailiff attempted to take the second applicant to Y’s car, which was parked in front of the house, by force. The second applicant actively resisted (by using force); the other two applicant children likewise resisted and obstructed the removal, holding onto each other or onto the first applicant. The bailiff then sought further instructions from Judge P. According to the account given by the welfare workers, the bailiff asked Judge P. to postpone the removal, which she refused to do. Judge P. instead asked those police officers who were present at the spot to actively assist the bailiff, which they refused to do, explaining that they were not empowered to undertake such a measure. Having been unable to remove the applicant children, the bailiff telephoned two assistants and asked them to come and help him. The assistants arrived two hours later. A around 4 p.m. the children were physically removed and driven to Y’s home. At some point during these events, an ambulance was called because the second applicant said that he felt pain in his chest. Six police officers were present during the above-noted events. 27 .     A video recording of approximately sixteen minutes submitted by the first applicant shows the first applicant and the children standing in the yard of a house, surrounded by the bailiff and his assistants. The recording shows a car parked a few metres away and Y in or behind that car. The first applicant can be heard repeatedly saying to the applicant children to go to their father and talk to him; she also asks Y to come out of the car and talk to the applicant children. The first applicant can be heard in the recording saying to certain adults present at the scene that the judge had told her over the phone that she is from now on prohibited from having contact with the children. When prompted to deny this for the sake of her children, she refuses to tell the children otherwise, explaining that she would not lie to them. The recording shows her and the second applicant asking Y to stop the enforcement, to which he replies that he cannot as this is a decision that needs to be respected. He can then be seen approaching the applicant children and trying to convince them to come to the car. The second applicant (who appears to be the most affected of the children and is persistently crying), asks the bailiff how he would feel if he were unable to see his mother. In the recording, the applicant children (who have at some point left or have been made to leave the first applicant’s side) are seen running back to her as she is standing at the door of the house. Towards the end of the recording the first applicant can be seen walking with the applicant children to the car, but they refuse to enter, while she remains passive. The children are practically all the time clinging to the first applicant, who does not release herself from their hold. Another very short video recording, probably recorded at the end of the removal measure, shows the second applicant crying and being carried or dragged by the bailiff and his assistant to the car, in which the other two applicant children are already sitting. 28 .     Pursuant to the welfare centre’s report, which was prepared after the Government had been given notice of the applications, the first applicant had not behaved constructively and had not prepared the children for their removal. The bailiff noted in his report (likewise prepared after the Government had been given notice of the applications) that the first applicant had been passive; although she had occasionally encouraged the applicant children to go to their father, her voice and gestures had indicated that she wanted them to stay by her. The bailiff also noted that the police had initially helped to carry the children to the car but had then abruptly ceased their efforts following the arrival of their superior, which had prompted him to summon his assistants to help him to execute the removal. SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS Relevant developments concerning custody and care prior to the judgment of 7 November 2022 29.     On 28 May 2020 the court prohibited the first applicant and persons related to her from informing the public about the events related to the custody and contact proceedings and to remove any content that they had previously published on this topic on social media. 30 .     On 1 July 2020 the first applicant requested the District Court that contact between her and the applicant children be arranged by means of an interim order (see also paragraph 32 below). On 20 July, 17 November 2020 and 8 January 2021 the first applicant lodged requests with the District Court that she be granted custody of the applicant children and that they be moved to the school in her area; the court refused those requests. 31 .     In the meantime, on 10 July 2020 the District Court requested expert   B to, inter alia , review the case file and to conduct interviews with the parties. It also appointed an expert in clinical psychology, S., to prepare a report concerning the first applicant’s and Y’s respective parental abilities and the children’s needs. 32 .     On 30 July 2020 the welfare centre prepared a report in which it urged the court to issue an interim order allowing the first applicant to have contact with the applicant children. It noted that the contact between them should be gradually intensified and accompanied by appropriate measures (such as protocols agreed in advance) aimed at ensuring that the parents acted constructively. 33 .     On 4 August 2020 the District Court issued an interim order allowing the first applicant to have two one-hourly contact sessions with the applicant children every other week under the supervision of welfare workers. The court also specified that the welfare centre should keep it informed of the situation so that further orders could be issued accordingly. The first applicant appealed against the order (see paragraph 36 below). 34 .     Shortly thereafter two one-hour contacts between the first applicant and the applicant children took place. On 18 August 2020 the welfare centre informed the court that the contact between the first applicant and the applicant children had gone well and noted that a decision regarding further contact arrangements (whereby the length of each contact session would gradually increase), should be taken immediately. 35 .     On 15 September 2020 the court appointed an expert in child clinical psychology, A, to prepare a report. 36 .     On 21 September 2020 the Ljubljana Higher Court issued a decision concerning the interim order of 4 August 2020 (see paragraph 33 above). It pointed out the importance of contact between the applicants (which had been recognised by the welfare centre), and the need to keep any interference with that contact to a minimum. It also referred to the welfare centre’s report, which had suggested that contact be immediately arranged and gradually extended. It noted that no grounds had been presented to justify that only two contact sessions should occur. It modified the contact arrangements so that the supervised visits would take place each first and third Monday of the month and that each should last for a minimum of one hour and a maximum of two hours. The Higher Court further noted that the District Court had failed to decide on any future extension of the contact, as requested by the first applicant and proposed by the welfare centre (see paragraphs 32 and 34 above); the Higher Court found that the failure to decide on any future contact had not been justified and that it had been against the children’s interests to reject the proposed extended contact without first examining the available evidence. The Higher Court remitted this matter to the first-instance court for re-examination. 37.     It would appear that in October 2020, contact of ninety minutes between the applicants took place in two weeks interval. 38 .     On 15 November 2020 the welfare centre submitted a new report to the District Court with respect to the supervised visits that had occurred. The report notes that the visits went well; however, the children had been visibly anxious because of the lack of information regarding future contact arrangements with the first applicant, with whom they wished to spend more time. 39 .     Following the interim contact order of 4 August 2020, the first applicant repeatedly urged the court to extend the contact arrangements between her and the applicant children. She also requested that a new interim order granting her custody of the applicant children be issued. On 8 December 2020 the Ljubljana District Court refused the first applicant’s request to be given custody of the children. It also found that the applicant children were not in danger and that it was therefore not necessary to issue a new interim order. The first applicant appealed, arguing that the children were subject to psychological damage given that they, inter alia , had “lost their mother”. She also alleged that the District Court’s impugned decision of 8 December 2020 had been in breach of the requirement of proportionality enshrined in Article   8 of the Convention, that the applicant children’s opinion remained ignored and that the court had not ordered less restrictive measures. 40 .     Her appeal was rejected by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 5 February 2021. The Higher Court found that the claim that the children wished to be with the first applicant had already been assessed before the issuance of the interim order of 8 November 2019; it therefore could not constitute grounds for the amendment of that decision. In the Higher Court’s view, the first applicant had not proved that the children were in danger under the current arrangements; any such danger would have called for a change to the interim order. In the same decision the Ljubljana Higher Court also upheld (after examining them on the merits – see paragraph 77 below) several decisions refusing the first applicant’s requests for the recusal of Judge P. On 7 April 2021 the Supreme Court refused her request for leave to appeal on points of law. The first applicant subsequently lodged a constitutional complaint (see paragraph 85 below). 41.     On 27 November 2020 the welfare centre sent a report to the District Court noting that the custody arrangements should be maintained in the same scope but that the above-mentioned expert report should be prepared without delay. 42 .     On 15 January 2021 an expert report was prepared by the three appointed experts, B, S, and A. It was based on, inter alia , (i) interviews conducted with the first applicant and Y, and (ii) examinations and observations in respect of the children (including while interacting with their parents), which were conducted at the end of 2020. The expert report observed that the first applicant had previously been the children’s primary caregiver, had been caring, loving and well-intentioned towards the children, and had been able to take care of their needs, but that those capacities had been considerably undermined when she had become emotionally affected by her conflict with Y. Under those circumstances, her disdain for Y had negatively influenced the applicant children, who had previously had a positive relationship with him. The report also found that the first applicant portrayed Y as an incapable parent and made the applicant children feel as though they had to “choose” between her or Y. Expert B considered that her behaviour had amounted to a form of psychological abuse of the applicant children. Given their age, the children were easily controlled and were prone to idealising their mother. Referring to her inability to reflect on her behaviour and her mistrust in the authorities and experts, the report found that without appropriate therapy the first applicant would likely continue her emotionally abusive behaviour towards the children and was therefore not capable of assuming the role of an autonomous ( samostojen ) caregiver. As regards Y, the report noted that he was able to take care of the applicant children, but reacted indecisively when confronted by emotionally challenging situations and was less able to calm the applicant children and to understand their emotional needs. However, unlike the first applicant, Y was able to distinguish his relationship with the first applicant from that with his children and did not cause them emotional strain. The report recommended that Y should have the primary custody of the applicant children, with the professional support (which had been already put in place). It also recommended that the first applicant should have contact with the applicant children once a week under supervision. The report suggested that the contact could be extended further and possibly to locations outside the premises of the welfare centre only once the parents learned how to transfer the children to each other without exposing them to stress. The report suggested that the situation be reassessed after three months with a view to determining further arrangements. The report also commented on the wishes expressed by the children to be with the first applicant and not Y, and noted that they were a reflection of their distress and desire to please their mother and to put a stop to a very stressful situation. Both parents were advised to undergo therapy in order to learn how to establish a cooperative relationship. Y was advised to seek further support with a view to developing parenting skills. The first applicant was advised to undergo long-term psychotherapy in order to address her narcissistic personality disorder. 43.     The first applicant disputed the experts’ findings and requested that another expert report be prepared – preferably by experts from abroad. This request was later rejected by the District Court, which found that the already existing expert report was consistent and fully comprehensible. The experts supplemented their report on 16 March 2021 (following comments received from the parties), but their findings remained essentially the same. 44 .     In the meantime, on 19 January 2021 the Ljubljana District Court refused one of the first applicant’s requests for provisional custody of the applicant children (lodged after provisional custody had been given to Y). The District Court stated that the applicant children, who at that point lived with Y, were not in any danger. The first applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had disregarded the distress suffered by the applicant children – who at the end of the supervised visit had cried and held onto the first applicant, refusing to go to Y. She also disputed the District Court’s finding that the children had not been in any danger. The Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the first applicant’s appeal in the decision of 8 March 2021 (see paragraph 24 above), noting that their placement with Y had not put the applicant children in danger and noted that her requests for the recusal of Judge P. had already been refused. 45.     On 20 May 2021 the court held a hearing at which the three appointed experts were examined. The parties reached a temporary settlement by which over the forthcoming five weeks contact between the first applicant and the children was to take place once weekly between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. in a park or a facility nearby. It was also agreed that expert A would be present during those visits and would draw up a report after each visit and send it to the court. Until that point the first applicant had had contact with the children once every two weeks, under supervision (see paragraph 36 above). 46.     On 28 May 2021 the welfare centre sent a report concerning the execution of the latest contact arrangements and noted they went well. According to the report, the children missed their mother and desired more contact with her. The welfare centre concluded that the first applicant was now capable of having contact with the applicant children without supervision. 47 .     On 24 June 2021 a hearing was held concerning provisional contact arrangements. Both parties, as well as the three appointed experts, were present. The parties reached a temporary court settlement concerning arrangements regarding contact between the first applicant and the applicant children during the school summer holidays, which included the applicant children several times staying overnight at the first applicant’s home. This arrangement concerned the period up to 25 August 2021. 48 .     On 30 August 2021 a new hearing was held before the District Court, at which the parties and experts were present. The first applicant requested that she be granted sole custody of the applicant children; Y opposed that request. The first applicant requested that the case be transferred to a different court; that request was refused by the Supreme Court on 15 September 2021. 49 .     On 10 September 2021 the experts submitted a report concerning the first applicant’s request for interim custody; that report was based on the case file, the information from the hearing of 30 August 2021, and two visitation meetings during the summer at which expert A was present. They noted that the nature of the parents’ communication with each other continued to be non ‑ constructive and that they still failed to put the children’s needs before their own. They also noted that neither of the parents had followed their advice and started the recommended therapy. The experts considered that for the time being it would not be in the children’s best interests to live with the first applicant. There remained the likelihood that she would continue to alienate them from their father. However, it was equally not in the children’s best interests to introduce a supervision or to interrupt the contact between them and the first applicant, because they were attached to her. The experts suggested that the contact be limited to one afternoon a week, and an overnight stay from Friday evening until Saturday evening every other week. 50 .     On 1 October 2021 the District Court refused the first applicant’s request for an interim order (see paragraph 48 above) and of its own motion issued an interim order setting out new contact arrangements (since their last contact in August 2021, the applicants appear to have had no contact, as no new contact schedule had been issued in the meantime – see paragraph 47 above). The first applicant was allowed to have contact with the applicant children every Thursday from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. A fine of EUR 1,000   would be imposed in the event of non-compliance. An objection and subsequent appeal lodged by the first applicant were dismissed. 51.     On 12 October 2021 the Ljubljana District Court re-examined the decision of 4 August 2020 (see paragraph 33 above), with respect to the extension of the contact (see paragraph 36 above). Referring to the Ljubljana Higher Court’s decision of 16 June 2020 (see paragraph 22 above) the District Court held that the first applicant was to blame for the situation – that is, for the placement of the children with Y and their restricted (and at times non ‑ existent) contact with her. The court noted that at the time that she had made her request that contact between her and the applicant children be arranged by means of an interim order (see