CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s7B59B8FD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s301E5582 { width:146.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 15535/23 Miroslava LAZIĆ against Serbia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   15535/23) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 7   December 2022 by a Serbian national, Ms Miroslava Lazić (“the applicant”), who was born in 1968 and lives in Titel; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles   6, 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning access to a court, right to a fair trial, family life, and right to an effective remedy to the Serbian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Z.   Jadrijević Mladar, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant was a foster care giver of X and Y, biological siblings. In 2018 X was adopted abroad, and all contact between him and the applicant was severed. The adoption was finalised on 21   February 2018, and the applicant was aware of that. 2.     On 9   December 2019, the applicant, as legal guardian of Y, brought a claim in the Novi Sad Basic Court, on behalf of Y, for the annulment of X’s adoption. In these proceedings a final decision was adopted by the Novi Sad High Court on 24   June 2024, declaring the claim inadmissible. 3.     The issues communicated to the respondent Government concern only the proceedings for the annulment of the adoption of X. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 4.     The applicant complained about the unfairness of proceedings concerning a claim for the annulment of the adoption of X. The Court notes that the applicant herself was not a party to the proceedings at issue since the claim was brought in the name of Y, X’s sister, and the applicant was only Y’s representative. 5.     Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3   (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4 (compare F. Santos, LDA and Fachadas v. Portugal (dec), no. 49020/99, 19 September 2000; Hambálek v. Check Republic (dec.), no. 38132/03, 9 May 2006; and L.R. and L.R. Senior v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 52443/99, 26 October 2004). Article 8 of the Convention 6.     The complaint brought under Article   8 of the Convention by the applicant concerns her lack of contact with X after his adoption. 7.     The Government submitted that a remedy to be exhausted in that respect was a claim for the annulment of X’s adoption which the applicant failed to lodge, since such a claim was submitted only on behalf of Y. 8.     The Court does not have to address the issue of whether the claim for the annulment of X’s adoption was or was not a remedy to be exhausted, because the applicant did not submit such a claim on her own behalf, and therefore these proceedings did not concern her rights. 9.     The Court then reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law determine the starting point of the running of the four-month (previously six-month) time-limit as follows: (a) when there are effective remedies available, it runs from the date of the final decision in the process of their exhaustion; (b) where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedies are available, it runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see, among many others, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   46477/99, 7 June 2001, and Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §   54, 29 June 2012). 10.     If the claim for annulment of X’s adoption was not a remedy to be exhausted, then the applicant should have submitted her application at the latest six months following X’s adoption which became final in 2018, since it was clear from that moment that the applicant would not have any further contact with X (see, for the determination of the applicable delay, Orhan v.   Türkiye (dec.), no. 38358/22, § 30, 6 December 2022). However, the applicant submitted her application on 7   December 2022. 11.     Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   1 of the Convention. Article 13 of the Convention 12.     As to the applicant’s complaint under Article   13 of the Convention that she had no effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court notes that if a claim for the annulment of X’s adoption was an effective remedy, the applicant’s complaint under Article   13 is manifestly ill-founded.   If such a claim was not a remedy to be exhausted, the applicant failed to submit her application with the six-month time-limit. 13.     Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and 3(a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.     Olga Chernishova   Darian Pavli   Deputy Registrar   President