CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juillet 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 } .sB853CD2D { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 37199/21 and 7332/22 M.H. against Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos. 37199/21 and 7332/22) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 July 2021 and 26 January 2022, respectively, by a Croatian national, Ms M.H. (“the applicant”), who was born in 2007, lives in Zagreb and was represented by Ms A. Galić Kondža, a lawyer practicing in Zagreb; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the non ‑ enforcement of the final domestic decision and the failure to respect the applicant’s private life to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms. Š. Stažnik, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s inability to obtain child support payments from her father. The civil proceedings concerning maintenance 2.     By a judgment of 3 October 2011, which became final and enforceable on 25 November 2011, the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ordered S.H., the applicant’s father, to pay her child support in the amount of 2,000 Croatian kunas (HRK; 272 euros (EUR)) per month, starting from June 2011 (“the 2011 judgment”). The first set of criminal proceedings 3.     S.H. did not comply with the maintenance obligation as stipulated in the 2011 judgment, paying only HRK 5,600 (EUR 745) in total between the adoption of the judgment and April 2016. The enforcement proceedings that the applicant’s mother had initiated on his bank accounts remained unsuccessful. In 2014, she thus lodged a criminal complaint against S.H. with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office, accusing him of the criminal offence of the breach of maintenance duty ( povreda dužnosti uzdržavanja ). The State Attorney’s Office indicted him on 6 March 2015. 4 .     The Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court’s (“the first-instance court”) judgment of 12 April 2016, finding S.H. guilty as charged, was quashed by the Zagreb County Court’s (“the second-instance court”) decision of 24   August 2016. By a judgment of 21 February 2017 (“the 2017 judgment”), the first-instance court again found S.H. guilty of having breached his maintenance duty towards the applicant and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. It also imposed the additional condition ( posebna obveza ) of regular payment of future child support instalments as they became due, and ordered him to pay, within two years, HRK 77,894.68 (roughly EUR 10,340) of maintenance arrears. That judgment became final on 7 June 2017. 5.     On 21 January 2020 the applicant instituted proceedings to have S.H.’s suspended sentence imposed by the 2017 judgment revoked and replaced with imprisonment, submitting that S.H. had failed to comply with the additional condition set out therein (see paragraph 4 above) despite in the meantime having been convicted again for the failure to pay child support (see paragraph 7 below). 6 .     By the first-instance court’s decision of 9 December 2020, the proceedings to revoke S.H.’s suspended sentence were discontinued because the deadline for doing so had expired on 7 June 2020, when the applicant’s request was still pending at first instance. Her appeal was dismissed by the second-instance court on 22 March 2021, received by the applicant’s representative on 14 April 2021. The second set of criminal proceedings 7 .     Meanwhile, on 24 April 2017 the applicant’s mother lodged another criminal complaint against S.H. for breach of his maintenance duty. By the first-instance court’s judgment of 12 April 2018 S.H. was again convicted of the same offence (“the 2018 judgment”), the court having established that between 6 April 2016 and 12 April 2018 he had paid the applicant only HRK 6,700 (EUR 889) on account of child support. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for five years, with the additional condition of regular payment of future child support instalments as they became due and ordered to pay, within two years, HRK 39,300 (EUR 5,216) of maintenance arrears accrued during the above period. The judgment became final on the same day. 8 .     On 2 December 2020, the applicant requested that S.H.’s suspended sentence imposed by the 2018 judgment be revoked, arguing that he had failed to pay the maintenance arrears as ordered by the additional condition. 9 .     By a judgment of 17 August 2021, the first-instance court set an additional three-month time-limit for S.H. to comply with the additional condition imposed by the 2018 judgment. It noted, in particular, that since the adoption of the 2018 judgment, he had been regularly paying child support as ordered by the 2011 judgment, until March 2021 when he was diagnosed with metastatic cancer. Moreover, while he had failed to settle in full the maintenance arrears, that is, HRK 39,300 accrued in the period between 6   April 2016 and 12 April 2018 (see paragraph 7 above), he had paid HRK   5,000 in total on that account. In view of his progressively worsening health condition which required constant medical treatment, on account of which the Zagreb Social Welfare Centre (the “Centre”) established he was severely disabled, the court observed that revoking his suspended sentence would not be in the applicant’s best interest, as imprisonment would further aggravate S.H.’s health condition and impede the improvement of his financial situation. 10 .     The first-instance court dispatched the judgment of 17   August 2021 only in December 2021. S.H. was never served with it, as he had died in November 2021. The applicant’s representative received the said judgment on 15 December 2021. 11.     By the first-instance court’s decision of 2 February 2023, the proceedings to have S.H.’s suspended sentence revoked were discontinued due to his death. Administrative proceedings concerning substitute maintenance 12.     In 2013, the applicant’s mother instituted administrative proceedings before the Centre seeking substitute maintenance for the applicant. 13 .     By a decision of 4 October 2013, the Centre awarded the applicant substitute maintenance in the monthly amount of HRK 547,80 (EUR 73). The decision specified that the substitute maintenance would be paid in the period from 19 September 2013 until S.H. started paying the child support, and at the latest until 18 September 2016. The complaints 14 .     The applicant complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to enforce a final civil court judgment in her favour. In particular, she complained about the fact that the first-instance court allowed for the deadline for the revocation of the suspended sentence imposed by the 2017 judgment to expire before deciding her request (see paragraph 6 above). In relation to the second set of the proceedings to revoke the suspended sentence (see paragraphs 8-10 above), she complained that the same court, contrary to Article 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dispatched the judgment of 17 August 2021 to the parties only some four months after it had been rendered, thus unjustifiably further extending the time-limit for S.H. to comply with the additional condition. 15.     The applicant also complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, that she had been deprived of her right to receive child support and therefore of substantive financial means during a very sensitive period of her childhood, whereas her father had not been adequately sanctioned. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 16.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications and that they concern the same applicant, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 17.     Furthermore, bearing in mind its case-law (see Orel v. Croatia (dec.), no. 51506/13, §§ 48 and 67, 7 June 2016, and the case-law cited therein), the Court considers that this case falls to be examined solely under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, which moreover absorbs the applicant’s complaints under Article 13 (see Işgın v. Türkiye , no. 41747/10, § 23, 4 October 2022). 18.     The general principles concerning the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment, where the debtor is a private individual, have been summarised in Orel , cited above, §§ 67-71. In particular, in such cases the Court must examine whether measures taken by the domestic authorities with a view to enforcing the judgment in the applicant’s favour were adequate and sufficient for the respondent State to comply with its positive obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 70 and 76). 19.     In that connection, the Court firstly notes that S.H. was convicted, on two occasions, of the criminal offence of the breach of maintenance duty. Both times he received a suspended sentence under the condition of regular payment of future child support instalments and payment of maintenance arrears (see paragraphs 4 and 7 above). It thus cannot be said that by refraining from applying sanctions the Croatian authorities failed to discharge their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to secure the enforcement of judgments (ibid., § 77). 20.     Secondly, it is true that due to the first-instance court’s delay in the processing of the applicant’s request it became legally impossible to revoke S.H.’s suspended sentence imposed by the 2017 judgment (see paragraph   6 above). However, in order to compel S.H. to start abiding by the 2011 judgment, the applicant also could – and did – lodge another criminal complaint against S.H., bringing about his second conviction for the breach of maintenance duty (see paragraph 7 above). 21.     Having been convicted for the second time, S.H. started regularly paying child support and making payments – albeit insufficient – toward settling the maintenance arrears. He stopped doing so only after he had fallen ill (see paragraph 9 above). Namely, it can be inferred from the documents provided by the Government (such as reports by the Probation Office dated 10 August 2018, 1 July 2019, 27 December 2019 and 17 April 2020) that, on top of having been regularly paying child support instalments since March   2018, S.H. had paid in total HRK 12,500 (EUR 1,659) on account of maintenance arrears by 11 March 2020. Therefore, the repeated application of criminal sanctions must have had some effect on his conduct (compare Orel , cited above, § 80), and it cannot be said that in his failure to settle the maintenance arrears in full S.H. was emboldened by a form of impunity under the criminal law (contrast with Işgın , cited above, § 45). 22.     Granted, the amounts of payments that S.H. made on account of maintenance arrears were insufficient to settle that debt within the grace periods set by the 2017 and 2018 judgments. In that connection, the applicant argued that revoking his suspended sentences would have increased the odds of him paying off the debt in full, as he could have worked within the prison system. The Court does not find this argument persuasive. Quite to the contrary, as pointed out by the Government, even assuming that S.H. would have agreed to work in prison, it is unlikely that the amount of remuneration thus earned would have sufficed for him to continue making child support payments and paying off maintenance arrears in the amounts comparable to those prior to an imprisonment – if at all. The Court observes in that regard that, pursuant to section 84 of the Execution of Criminal Sanctions Act, the basis for the calculation of remuneration for prisoners’ work amounted to 20% of the gross basis for the calculation of the state officials’ and employees’ salaries. 23.     The foregoing holds even more true for the period after S.H. had fallen ill – at which time the second set of the proceedings to revoke his suspended sentence was pending (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above) – when the serving of the prison sentence would likely have further aggravated his health condition, as noted also by the first-instance court which found that revoking the suspended sentence imposed by the 2018 judgment would not be in the applicant’s best interest (see paragraph 9 above). For the same reasons, that court’s failure to timely dispatch the judgment of 17 August 2021 (see paragraph 14 above), while unfortunate, could not have caused any prejudice to her. 24.     Lastly, the Court notes that the domestic authorities also addressed the applicant’s material difficulties by awarding her substitute maintenance (see Orel , cited above, § 83, and paragraph 13 above). 25.     In view of the above, the Court finds that in the present case the measures taken by the authorities with a view to assisting the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour were adequate and sufficient in the given circumstances, and that the State thus discharged its positive obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to secure the enforcement of judgments. 26.     It follows that these applications are inadmissible under Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 September 2025.     Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President