CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s440A90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA98445F2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s1872B464 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; background-color:#ffffff } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; 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 } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sEE48D15E { width:149.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF Y v. SERBIA (Application no. 28322/20)       JUDGMENT Art 8 • Positive obligations • Family life • Severance of contact between the applicant and her half-brother after he was adopted by a family living abroad • Applicant’s refusal to be adopted could not be allowed to outweigh her half-brother’s own interests • In case-circumstances adoption of the applicant’s half-brother by a family living abroad was, in the long-term, in his best interests • Domestic authorities’ assessment not arbitrary • Prevailing interests of the adoptive family in enjoying and building a family life together with the applicant’s half-brother, undisturbed by attempts by his biological family members to re-establish contact   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 12 May 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Y v. Serbia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   28322/20) 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”) by a Serbian national, Ms   Y (“the applicant”), on 10 October 2020; the decision to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, her right to a fair trial and her right to an effective remedy; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 24 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the applicant’s lack of contact with her half-brother, X, after he was adopted by a family living abroad. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 2007 and lives in T. She was granted leave to be represented by Ms L. (Rule 36 §   4 (a) of the Rules of Court). 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   Z. Jadrijević Mladar. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         Background to the case 5.     In 2015 the applicant’s parents asked the Social Care Centre for T. and Ž. Municipalities (hereinafter “the Centre”) to place their children in foster care because they could not provide adequate care for them. The Centre’s staff members found that the children had been seriously neglected. In the same year, the applicant and her three siblings were placed in foster care. The applicant and her maternal half-brother X, who was born in February   2014 and whose biological father is unknown, were placed with Ms L., who lived in a household with her parents and a brother. The applicant’s two other siblings were placed with another family living in the same town. The children had contact with each other at least once a week. 6.     In May   2015 Ms L. was appointed legal guardian of the applicant and X. 7.     Given that the applicant’s parents had not made any effort to maintain contact with their children, they were deprived of their parental rights in respect of all four children on 16   May   2016. The children thus met the criteria for adoption.       Adoption of X 8.     In 2016 the Centre assessed that it was in the best interests of the applicant and her siblings, in the long term, to be adopted. It therefore started the procedure for their adoption. The Centre decided to seek a family that would adopt all four siblings, or, failing that, one that would adopt both the applicant and X. 9.     In an opinion given on 29   August   2016, the paediatrician in charge of X’s care expressed his opinion that X was suitable for adoption. 10.     Since all attempts to find potential adoptive parents for the children in Serbia had failed, in September 2017 the Centre began to look internationally for adoptive parents. 11.     In that same month a couple from abroad expressed an interest in adopting the applicant and X. September   2017 was also the month in which the applicant turned ten, which meant that she had the right to decide whether she wished to be adopted or not. On 13   November   2017 she expressed a wish not to be adopted and to continue living with Ms   L. instead. She repeated that wish on 1   December   2017, both orally and in writing, stating that she did not wish to be adopted even if her siblings were. 12.     Initially Ms   L. had given her consent for the domestic or international adoption of X. However, when the applicant expressed a wish not to be adopted Ms   L. withdrew her consent to the adoption of X. 13.     On 14   December   2017 the Centre relieved Ms L. of her legal guardianship over X. It held that Ms L., by opposing X’s adoption, had not recognised that being adopted and having his “family situation ... permanently remedied” was in his best interests. The Centre appointed one of its lawyers as X’s legal guardian instead. Ms L. remained X’s foster carer. She was notified of that decision on 22   December   2017 at the Centre’s premises. 14.     In a report of 8   January   2018, the Centre established that the potential adoptive parents had been interviewed by the relevant authorities of their country of origin, had undergone an obligatory course for potential adoptive parents and had been found suitable. The report also stated that the child’s former legal guardian, Ms L., had given her consent for X’s adoption. However, when she had learned that potential adoptive parents had been identified she had started to express doubts about his potential adoption. She had stated that she would have been willing to adopt the applicant, but not X, because she did not have sufficient means to support both children. Ms   L. had previously expressed her intention to adopt the applicant, but had changed her mind once she had learned that the applicant’s biological mother suffered from mental issues and had been a prostitute. The report stated that Ms L.’s reservations about the adoption being in X’s best interests had been fuelled by comments she had read about adoption on social media and by conversations she claimed to have had with psychologists. The report continued that Ms L. had expressed her reservations but had not contacted the staff member at the Centre in charge of the case in order to discuss them, as she could have done. The report recommended that X be placed under Centre’s direct guardianship so that the main aim of “the stability plan for the child”, namely his adoption, could be attained. The report concluded that the reports on the potential adoptive parents indicated that they would be capable of satisfying X’s needs and were good potential adoptive parents for him. 15.     On 10   January   2018 a team comprised of staff from the Centre, namely a psychologist, a social worker, a lawyer, and the head of the Centre, drew up a written report which concluded that it would be in X’s best interest to be adopted by the potential adoptive parents from abroad, given that no potential adoptive parents had been found for him in Serbia. 16.     A meeting was held in the Ministry for Labour, Employment, War Veterans and Social Affairs (hereinafter “the Ministry”) on 5   February   2018, which was attended by a lawyer and a special educator from the Ministry, a psychologist from the Centre (who was also in charge of X’s file there), the lawyer who had been made X’s legal guardian, X’s foster carer (Ms L.), the potential adoptive parents, a representative of the adoption agency, and an interpreter. It was concluded that the process of X’s adoption by the potential adoptive parents would begin with a first period of contact between them followed by a period of adjustment. 17.     The meetings between X and the potential adoptive parents were held on 5, 6, 7 and 8   February 2018 in the household of Ms L., in a nearby park and at the Centre’s premises. The Centre’s reports of those meetings described the first contact between them as having gone well. 18.     On 9   February   2018 X’s legal guardian gave her consent to his living with the potential adoptive parents until his adoption by them. 19 .     On 12   February   2018 the Centre submitted a report expressing a very positive assessment of the adjustment period following contact between X and his potential adoptive parents. 20 .     On 13   February   2018 a team of experts (a psychologist, an educator and a lawyer) from the Ministry gave their opinion about the adoption of X. It was stated that the initial plan had been that the applicant and X would be adopted together. However, after the applicant had expressed her wish not to be adopted, the procedure for the adoption of X had been set in motion. The team of experts expressed the opinion that it was in X’s best interests to be adopted by the potential adoptive parents. In conclusion (point   4) it was stated that the potential adoptive parents would ensure contact between X and the applicant “in accordance with their means, needs and interests ( mogućnostima potrebama i interesovanjima )”. 21.     On 14   February   2018 the Ministry adopted a decision allowing the potential adoptive parents to adopt X. The decision did not mention any contact between the applicant and X after his adoption. 22.     On 21   February   2018 the Centre issued a decision approving the adoption of X by the potential adoptive parents. The decision stated, inter alia , that all conditions under the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption had been met. The decision did not mention any contact between the applicant and X after his adoption. 23.     There has been no contact between the applicant and X since the latter’s adoption. 24.     At the initiative of staff members at the Centre, Ms L. took the applicant to see a psychologist after X’s adoption. A report drawn up by the psychologist on 9   March   2018 indicated that the applicant had been sad and cried often in the immediate aftermath of the adoption of her brother, but that as of three weeks before their meeting her condition had improved. Since then she had had no problems with sleeping or eating, had had good relations with her classmates and there had been no major issues with her personality or relationships with children of her age or in the family.     Proceedings challenging the adoption of x    Request for the re-opening of the adoption process 25.     On 25   July   2019 Ms L. lodged an application with the N. Regional Secretariat for Demography and Gender Equality ( Pokrajinski sekretrijat za demografiju i ravnopravnost spolova u N. – “the Regional Secretariat”) for the re-opening of the process concerning X’s adoption. The request was dismissed on 18   October   2019. 26.     Ms L. then lodged a claim with the N. Administrative Court to the same end, which was dismissed on 16   June   2025.    Request for the annulment of X’s adoption 27 .     On 4   December   2019 Ms L. lodged a claim, on behalf of the applicant, with the N. Court of First Instance against the Centre, seeking the annulment of X’s adoption on the basis that it had not been in X’s best interests since it had led to the complete severance of ties between the applicant and X. In its reply to that claim, the Centre submitted that the applicant did not have legal standing to lodge a claim for the annulment of the adoption of her half-brother, since the only persons with legal standing to do so were X’s biological parents. 28.     On 27   March   2020 the Centre relieved Ms L. of her legal guardianship over the applicant on the ground that she had attempted to obstruct X’s adoption, had involved the applicant in various legal proceedings by naming her as a “claimant” in those proceedings, and had nurtured in her a false hope that her brother would be “returned”. In the Centre’s view, all that had confused the applicant and had had a negative impact on her emotional well-being. The Centre further assessed that Ms   L. had not come to terms with the loss of X after his adoption, which had led her co-operation with the Centre’s staff members to deteriorate and had resulted in Ms   L. preventing the Centre’s staff members from seeing and interviewing the applicant alone. The applicant was placed under the direct guardianship of the Centre but continued to live with Ms L., who continued to be her foster carer. 29.     On 27   April   2020 Ms L. lodged an appeal against the decision of 27   March 2020 with the Regional Secretariat, which dismissed it on 27   May 2020. 30.     On 1   June   2020 Ms L. lodged an application with the N. Administrative Court seeking that enforcement of the decision to relieve her of legal guardianship over applicant be stayed. That request was dismissed on 16   June   2020. 31 .     On 22   June   2020 Ms L. brought an action in the N. Administrative Court challenging the decision to relieve her of legal guardianship over the applicant. 32.     On 11 and 21   July   2020 Ms L. lodged fresh applications with the N. Administrative Court seeking that enforcement of the decision to relieve her of legal guardianship over the applicant be stayed. Those applications were dismissed on 14 and 24 of July   2020 respectively. Ms   L. lodged a constitutional complaint against the latter decision on 7   August   2020. 33.     In the proceedings for the annulment of X’s adoption before the N. Court of First Instance (see paragraph   27 above), the Centre staff member who had replaced Ms   L. as the applicant’s legal guardian informed the court that she did not approve of the action taken by Ms L. on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, on 22   October   2020 that court dismissed the claim for the annulment of X’s adoption on the ground that it had been submitted by a person who lacked the requisite standing to do so, given that Ms   L. was no longer the applicant’s legal guardian. Ms   L. lodged an appeal against that decision. 34 .     On 3   February   2021 the N. Appeal Court remitted the case file to the first-instance court so that a guardian ad litem could be appointed for the applicant for the relevant proceedings because the claim had been submitted against the Centre and, therefore, the Centre could not serve as the applicant’s guardian in the proceedings. Ms   L. lodged a constitutional complaint against that procedural decision, and those proceedings are still pending before the Constitutional Court. 35.     On 19   February   2021 the N. Administrative Court dismissed Ms   L.’s challenge of the decision depriving her of guardianship over the applicant (see paragraph   31 above). 36 .     On 26   March   2021 Ms L. lodged a constitutional complaint seeking the annulment of all decisions depriving her of guardianship over the applicant. 37 .     A guardian ad litem was appointed for the applicant as requested by the appeal court in the proceedings for the annulment of X’s adoption. The guardian ad litem did not approve of the legal actions taken by Ms   L. and the case was forwarded to the N. Court of Appeal. On 28   September   2022 that court declared the appeal lodged by Ms   L. inadmissible owing to her lack of standing, since she was neither a party to the proceedings nor the applicant’s legal representative in them. On 16 December 2022 Ms   L. submitted that decision to the Constitutional Court in the file concerning her complaint about decisions relieving her of legal guardianship over the applicant (see paragraph   36 above), but did not make any specific complaints about it. 38.     On 3   October   2022 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible Ms   L.’s constitutional complaint of 7   August   2020 challenging the administrative courts’ refusal to stay the execution of the order relieving her of guardianship over the applicant (see paragraph   32 above) since it had not been lodged against any decision on the merits. 39.     The applicant spent the school year of 2023/24 in a student residence ( internat ) in Z., but Ms   L. remained her foster carer. 40 .     On 14 September   2023 the Constitutional Court accepted the constitutional complaint lodged by Ms   L. on 26   March   2021 (see paragraph   36 above) and quashed the decisions relieving her of legal guardianship over the applicant. It held that those decisions had not given adequate reasons for the conclusion that Ms   L. had abused her position as the applicant’s legal guardian, and that the fact that Ms   L. had instituted the proceedings for the annulment of X’s adoption and made attempts to secure contact between the applicant and X after the latter’s adoption could not be seen as an abuse of her position. The Government confirmed that as from the date of the aforesaid Constitutional Court’s decision Ms L. continued to be the applicant’s legal guardian. 41 .     On 13   October 2023 the applicant sought the re-opening of the proceedings for the annulment of X’s adoption. 42.     On 22   March 2024 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the constitutional complaint against the N. Court of Appeal’s decision of 3   February   2021 because that had been a procedural decision, and not a decision on the merits (see paragraph   34 above). In the same decision the Constitutional Court also declared inadmissible Ms   L.’s complaint against the N. Court of Appeal’s decision of 28   September 2022 (see paragraph   37 above). In respect of that decision, the Constitutional Court noted that it would be possible for Ms   L. to seek the re-opening of those proceedings in view of its having quashed on 14 September   2023 the decisions relieving her of legal guardianship over the applicant (see paragraph   40 above). 43 .     On 24   June 2024 the N. Court of First Instance dismissed an application lodged by Ms   L. seeking the reopening of the proceedings for the annulment of X’s adoption (see paragraph   41 above), finding that the decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 September 2023 (see paragraph   40 above) could not affect the fact that the applicant was represented by a special guardian in those proceedings or the fact that the guardian ad litem had not agreed with the application for the annulment of X’s adoption. On 2   August 2024 Ms   L. lodged an appeal in her own name against that decision. 44 .     In September 2024 a team of experts – comprising an educator, a psychologist and a social worker – from the N. Centre for Family Accommodation and Adoption ( Centar za porodični smeštaj i usvojenje u N. ) carried out an assessment of Ms L.’s performance as foster carer. They found that the Centre’s staff members had been prevented by Ms   L. from seeing the applicant alone, that is to say in the absence of Ms L., and that therefore staff had been unable to obtain the applicant’s opinion on the care provided to her by Ms   L. Ms   L. had also refused to give the name of the applicant’s class teacher to the staff member responsible for her file at the Centre. The assessment found that relations between Ms L. as foster carer and the Centre as the authority with responsibility for the applicant had deteriorated since X’s adoption, and that she had not been acting in the best interest of the applicant. The team of experts considered that Ms L. had failed to understand the roles of the various people involved in the care of children given to foster care, and that she was not capable of assisting in the preparation of the applicant for her transition out of foster care. They further found that the L. family was characterised by a rigid “family structure” and did not support the applicant’s autonomy. They found that Ms L.’s resistance to X’s adoption also showed her lack of understanding of her role as a foster carer. They also saw Ms L.’s attitude towards the applicant as controlling and judged that she was incapable of accepting the applicant’s individuality. They concluded that Ms L. did not possess the “minimal skills and knowledge” necessary for a foster carer. On 30   September 2024 the Centre issued a decision terminating her status as a foster carer. Ms L. lodged an appeal against that decision. 45.     On 1 October 2024 the N. Court of Appeal dismissed Ms L.’s appeal against the judgment of the N. Court of First Instance of 24 June 2024 (see paragraph 43 above). 46 .     On 20 November 2024 Ms L.’s appeal against the Centre’s decision of 30 September 2024 (see paragraph 44 above) was dismissed by the Regional Secretariat. Ms L. lodged an administrative claim against that decision. 47.     In September 2025 the applicant turned eighteen. On 26   September and 7   October 2025, she confirmed that she wished to pursue the instant application which Ms L. had originally introduced on her behalf. She approved of all actions taken by Ms L. and expressed a wish that the latter continue to represent her in the proceedings before the Court. 48.     On 9 October 2025 the Centre issued a decision terminating Ms L.’s guardianship over the applicant because she had attained full age. That decision became final on 29 October 2025. 49 .     On 24 October 2025 the Administrative Court dismissed Ms L.’s administrative claim against the decision of the Regional Secretariat of 20   November 2024 (see paragraph 46 above). 50.     On 24 December 2025 the Centre initiated proceedings for termination of Ms L.’s status as the applicant’s foster care giver, on the grounds that by judgment of the Administrative Court of 24 October 2025 (see paragraph 49 above) she had been stripped of her general status as a foster care giver.    OTHER RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS 51 .     Soon after X’s adoption, Ms L. started to contact the relevant authorities in Serbia and in the country where X was living with his adoptive family, as well as X’s adoptive parents, asking them to secure contact between X and his siblings in Serbia. A representative of those authorities informed Ms L. on 21   December 2021 that they had contacted X’s adoptive parents, who had stated that they talked to X about his origin and his family in Serbia regularly, but that he was not ready for contact with them. However, with time and as he grew up, he could cultivate his relationship with his sibling if he wished to do so. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK         Domestic legal framework    Constitution of the Republic of Serbia   2006 ( Ustav Republike Srbije ; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia (“OG RS”) nos. 98/2006 and 115/2021) 52.     The relevant part of the Constitution reads as follows: International relations Article   16 §   2 “... [R]atified international treaties are an integral part of the [Serbian] legal system ... and shall be directly applicable ...” Rights of the child Article   64 “A child shall enjoy human rights appropriate to his or her age and mental maturity. Every child shall have the right to a personal name, an entry in the registry of births, the right to learn about [his or her] ancestry, and the right to preserve his or her identity. A child shall be protected from psychological, physical, economic and any other form of exploitation or abuse. A child born out of wedlock shall have the same rights as a child born in wedlock. The rights of the child and their protection shall be regulated by law.”    The Family Act ( Porodični zakon , published in OG RS nos.   18/05 and 72/11) 53.     The relevant provisions of the Family Act read as follows: Article   88 “Adoption is established by a decision of the guardianship authority.” Article   89 “A child may be adopted if it is in his or her best interest.” Article 90 “(1) Only a minor may be adopted. (2) A child may not be adopted before reaching the third month of life. (3) A minor who has acquired full legal capacity may not be adopted.” Article   91 “Children in the following situations may be adopted: 1. a child who has no living parents; 2. a child whose parents, or the dwelling place thereof, are unknown; 3. a child whose parents have been fully deprived of parental rights; 4. a child whose parents have been fully deprived of legal capacity; 5. a child whose parents gave their consent to adoption.” Article 95 “(1) A child may be adopted only with the consent of his or her parents. (2) A parent may give his or her consent to adoption with or without designating the adopters. (3) A parent may not give his or her consent to adoption before the child reaches his or her second month of life. (4) A parent may withdraw his or her consent to adoption within thirty days from the day the consent was given. (5) A parent can use the right outlined in paragraph   4 only once.” Article   96 “The consent of a parent to adoption is not necessary: 1. if the parent has been fully deprived of parental rights; 2. if the parent has been deprived of the right to decide on issues that significantly influence the child’s life; 3. if the parent has been fully deprived of legal capacity.” Article   97 “If a child is under guardianship, the consent to adoption is given by his or her guardian.” Article   98 “A child who has reached ten years of age and who is capable of reasoning has to give his or her consent to adoption.” Article 103 “(1) A foreign citizen may adopt a child under the conditions: 1. that adopters cannot be found among [Serbian] citizens; 2. that the minister responsible for family protection gives his consent to the adoption. (2) It is to be considered that adopters cannot be found among [Serbian] citizens if more than one year has passed from the day when data on the future adoptee was entered in the Unified Personal Register of Adoptions. (3) Exceptionally, the minister responsible for family protection can [approve an] adoption [by] a foreign citizen before the time-limit set in paragraph   2 of this Article, if that is in the best interests of the child.” Article   104 “Adoption results in the establishment of the same rights and duties between the adoptee and his or her offspring and the adopters and their relatives, as between a child and his or her parents and other relatives.” Article 105 “(1) Adoption terminates the parental rights of parents, unless the child is adopted by the spouse or the cohabitee of the child’s parent. (2) Adoption terminates the rights and duties of the child towards his or her relatives and the rights and duties of the relatives towards the child.” Article 106 “(1) Adoption may be terminated by annulment, if it is null and void or voidable. (2) Adoption may not be rescinded.” Article   107 “An adoption is null and void if, [when it occurred], the conditions for its validity as specified by this Act had not been met.” Article   108 “An adoption is voidable if the consent to adoption was given under duress or in error.” Article 119 “(1) A foster parent has the right and duty to protect, raise, bring up and educate the child. (2) A foster parent has the duty to take special care to prepare the child for independent life and work. (3) A foster parent has the right to compensation, in accordance with law.” Article 121 “(1) Foster care is terminated: 1. when the child reaches eighteen years of age; 2. when the child acquires full legal capacity before coming of age; 3. when the child is adopted; 4. when the child or the foster parent dies; or 5. by revocation of foster care. (2) Foster care may be prolonged, at most, to the child’s twenty-sixth year of life, if the child is in regular schooling. (3) In the case of the death of the foster parent, a person who lived with him or her in the same family household has priority [among the candidates to be the child’s] new foster carer.” Article 131 “(1) The guardianship authority may decide, if it is in the ward’s interest, not to appoint a guardian to a person under guardianship, but to perform the guardianship duties directly. (2) An expert from the guardianship authority, who will perform the activities of the guardian in the name of the guardianship authority, is appointed by a ruling on direct performance of guardianship activities. (3) The expert from the guardianship authority may validly perform the guardianship activities which, when performed by a guardian, are valid only upon an approval from the guardianship authority, only if he or she does not hold guardianship administrative powers and [only] under the [same] conditions and in the manner [as they would have to be] performed by a guardian. (4) The guardianship authority may perform a legal transaction with the ward under its direct care only with the consent of the ministry responsible for family protection.” Article 132 “(1) The guardianship authority may decide to appoint a temporary guardian to a ward, to a child under parental care, or to a person with legal capacity, if it finds that necessary for the temporary protection of the personality, rights or interests of such persons. (2) Under the conditions referred to in paragraph   1 of this Article, the guardianship authority is under an obligation to appoint a temporary guardian to: 1. a person whose dwelling place is unknown and who does not have a legal representative or [who hasn’t created a] power of attorney; 2. the owner of property [when he or she is unknown]; 3. a person whose interests are adverse to the interests of his or her legal representative, or to persons who have adverse interests and the same legal representative (collision guardian); 4. a foreign citizen who is present or has property in the territory of the Republic of Serbia; 5. a person who requests that a temporary guardian be appointed to him or her and gives a justified reason; 6. any other person when so provided for by law. (3) The decision on the appointment of a temporary guardian must also state the legal transactions or type of legal transactions that the guardian may undertake depending on the circumstances of each specific case.” Article 133 “(1) The guardianship authority is under an obligation to relieve the guardian of guardianship without delay if it establishes that the guardian has, for any reason, ceased to perform his or her duties, or that the guardian has abused the rights or grossly neglected the duties of a guardian, or that a circumstance has arisen owing to which he or she [was not eligible to be] appointed as a guardian.” Article 275 “(1) An action for the annulment of an adoption on the grounds listed in Articles   89 through 103 of this Act can be initiated by the adopters, the adoptee, the parents or guardian of the adoptee, persons having a legal interest in the annulment of the adoption or the public prosecutor. (2) An individual who has given a statement of consent to adoption under duress or in error has the right to bring an action for the annulment of the adoption within one year from the day the duress ceased or the error was noticed.”       Relevant international materials    European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised) 54.     The European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised) of 27   November 2008, CETS 202, was signed by Serbia on 18   June   2009, but has yet to be ratified. The relevant parts of that Convention read as follows: Article   4 – Granting of an adoption “1. The competent authority shall not grant an adoption unless it is satisfied that the adoption will be in the best interests of the child. 2. In each case the competent authority shall pay particular attention to the importance of the adoption providing the child with a stable and harmonious home.” Article   5 – Consents to an adoption “1. Subject to paragraphs   2 to 5 of this article, an adoption shall not be granted unless at least the following consents to the adoption have been given and not withdrawn: (a) the consent of the mother and the father; or if there is neither father nor mother to consent, the consent of any person or body who is entitled to consent in their place; (b) the consent of the child considered by law as having sufficient understanding; a child shall be considered as having sufficient understanding on attaining an age which shall be prescribed by law and shall not be more than 14   years; (c) the consent of the spouse or registered partner of the adopter. 2. The persons whose consent is required for adoption must have been counselled as may be necessary and duly informed of the effects of their consent, in particular whether or not an adoption will result in the termination of the legal relationship between the child and his or her family of origin. The consent must have been given freely, in the required legal form, and expressed or evidenced in writing. 3. The competent authority shall not dispense with the consent or overrule the refusal to consent of any person or body mentioned in paragraph   1 save on exceptional grounds determined by law. However, the consent of a child who suffers from a disability preventing the expression of a valid consent may be dispensed with. 4. If the father or mother is not a holder of parental responsibility in respect of the child, or at least of the right to consent to an adoption, the law may provide that it shall not be necessary to obtain his or her consent. 5. A mother’s consent to the adoption of her child shall be valid when it is given at such time after the birth of the child, not being less than six weeks, as may be prescribed by law, or, if no such time has been prescribed, at such time as, in the opinion of the competent authority, will have enabled her to recover sufficiently from the effects of giving birth to the child. 6. For the purposes of this Convention ‘father’ and ‘mother’ mean the persons who according to law are the parents of the child.” Article   10 – Preliminary enquiries “1. The competent authority shall not grant an adoption until appropriate enquiries have been made concerning the adopter, the child and his or her family. During such enquiries and thereafter, data may only be collected, processed and communicated according to the rules relating to professional confidentiality and personal data protection. 2. The enquiries, to the extent appropriate in each case, shall concern, as far as possible and inter alia , the following matters: (a) the personality, health and social environment of the adopter, particulars of his or her home and household and his or her ability to bring up the child; (b) why the adopter wishes to adopt the child; (c) where only one of two spouses or registered partners applies to adopt the child, why the other does not join in the application; (d) the mutual suitability of the child and the adopter, and the length of time that the child has been in his or her care; (e) the personality, health and social environment of the child and, subject to any limitations imposed by law, his or her background and civil status; (f) the ethnic, religious and cultural background of the adopter and of the child. 3. These enquiries shall be entrusted to a person or body recognised for that purpose by law or by a competent authority. They shall, as far as practicable, be made by social workers who are qualified in this field as a result of either their training or their experience. 4. The provisions of this article shall not affect the power or duty of the competent authority to obtain any information or evidence, whether or not within the scope of these enquiries, which it considers likely to be of assistance. 5. Enquiries relating to the suitability to adopt and the eligibility of the adopter, the circumstances and the motives of the persons concerned and the appropriateness of the placement of the child shall be made before the child is entrusted with a view to adoption to the care of the prospective adopter.” Article   11 – Effects of an adoption “1. Upon adoption a child shall become a full member of the family of the adopter(s) and shall have in regard to the adopter(s) and his, her or their family the same rights and obligations as a child of the adopter(s) whose parentage is legally established. The adopter(s) shall have parental responsibility for the child. The adoption shall terminate the legal relationship between the child and his or her father, mother and family of origin. ... 3. As regards the termination of the legal relationship between the child and his or her family of origin, States Parties may make exceptions in respect of matters such as the surname of the child and impediments to marriage or to entering into a registered partnership. 4. States Parties may make provision for other forms of adoption having more limited effects than those stated in the preceding paragraphs of this article.” Article   14 – Revocation and annulment of an adoption “1. An adoption may be revoked or annulled only by decision of the competent authority. The best interests of the child shall always be the paramount consideration. 2. An adoption may be revoked only on serious grounds permitted by law before the child reaches the age of majority. 3. An application for annulment must be made within a period prescribed by law.”    Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption 55.     The Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption (1993) was acceded to by Serbia on 18   December   2013 and entered into force on 1   April   2014. The relevant parts of that Convention read as follows: Article   1 “The objects of the present Convention are – a) to establish safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights as recognised in international law; b) to establish a system of co-operation amongst Contracting States to ensure that those safeguards are respected and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children; c) to secure the recognition in Contracting States of adoptions made in accordance with the Convention.” Article   4 “An adoption within the scope of the Convention shall take place only if the competent authorities of the State of origin – a) have established that the child is adoptable; b) have determined, after possibilities for placement of the child within the State of origin have been given due consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in the child’s best interests; c) have ensured that (1) the persons, institutions and authorities whose consent is necessary for adoption, have been counselled as may be necessary and duly informed of the effects of their consent, in particular whether or not an adoption will result in the termination of the legal relationship between the child and his or her family of origin, (2) such persons, institutions and authorities have given their consent freely, in the required legal form, and expressed or evidenced in writing, (3) the consents have not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind and have not been withdrawn, and (4) the consent of the mother, where required, has been given only after the birth of the child; and d) have ensured, having regard to the age and degree of maturity of the child, that (1) he or she has been counselled and duly informed of the effects of the adoption and of his or her consent to the adoption, where such consent is required, (2) consideration has been given to the child’s wishes and opinions, (3) the child’s consent to the adoption, where such consent is required, has been given freely, in the required legal form, and expressed or evidenced in writing, and (4) such consent has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind.” Article 21 “(1) Where the adoption is to take place after the transfer of the child to the receiving State and it appears to the Central Authority of that State that the continued placement of the child with the prospective adoptive parents is not in the child’s best interests, such Central Authority shall take the measures necessary to protect the child, in particular – a) to cause the child to be withdrawn from the prospective adoptive parents and to arrange temporary care; b) in consultation with the Central Authority of the State of origin, to arrange without delay a new placement of the child with a view to adoption or, if this is not appropriate, to arrange alternative long-term care; an adoption shall not take place until the Central Authority of the State of origin has been duly informed concerning the new prospective adoptive parents; c) as a last resort, to arrange the return of the child, if his or her interests so require. (2) Having regard in particular to the age and degree of maturity of the child, he or she shall be consulted and, where appropriate, his or her consent obtained in relation to measures to be taken under this Article.” Article 26 “(1) The recognition of an adoption includes recognition of a) the legal parent-child relationship between the child and his or her adoptive parents; b) parental responsibility of the adoptive parents for the child; c) the termination of a pre-existing legal relationship between the child and his or her mother and father, if the adoption has this effect in the Contracting State where it was made. (2) In the case of an adoption having the effect of terminating a pre-existing legal parent-child relationship, the child shall enjoy in the receiving State, and in any other Contracting State where the adoption is recognised, rights equivalent to those resulting from adoptions having this effect in each such State. (3) The preceding paragraphs shall not prejudice the application of any provision more favourable for the child, in force in the Contracting State which recognises the adoption.”    Convention on the Rights of the Child 56.     The Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, UNTS   27531 (ratified by Serbia on 12 March 2001), in so far as relevant reads as follows: Article   21 “States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consid