CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 novembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)225 Gluhaković against Croatia Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 21188/09 GLUHAKOVIĆ 12/04/2011 12/07/2011   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 November 2013 at the 1185th (Budget) meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2011)955 );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Action report Case Gluhakovic v. Croatia Application No. 21188/09, Judgment of 12/04/2011, final on 12/07/2011   In the above-mentioned judgment, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the failure of national authorities to secure effective contact between the applicant and his daughter, with whom he does not live. The Court expressly ordered the State to secure effective contact, “on the basis of the judgment by the Rijeka Municipal Court of 8 March 2010”.   1.   Individual measures   Firstly, the government points out that, acting on the applicant’s request to change the previous decision on contact between him and his daughter, Rijeka Municipal Court rendered a decision on 8   March 2010. Therefore, there has been an obvious mistake ( lapsus calami ) both in §§ 32-35 of the judgment, as well as in the operative provisions. Thus, the obligation of the State relates to ensuring compliance with the decision of 8   March 2010.   During the procedure before the ECtHR, as well as after the judgment was rendered, the Rijeka Social Welfare Centre worked intensively in securing contacts between the applicant and his daughter. In order to ensure the necessary assistance (especially in overcoming trust issues between the applicant and his ex ‑ wife), as well as monitor the realisation of contacts between the applicant and his daughter, the Rijeka Social Welfare Centre ordered the measure of monitoring the exercise of parental rights for both the applicant and his ex-wife.   Significant progress has been made in the application of the mentioned measure. Improved communication between the applicant and his ex-wife now allows for contact between the applicant and his daughter to be held in accordance with the applicant’s work schedule (with respect to the child’s school schedule). Therefore, contact between the applicant and his daughter is not held on specific days of the week, but varies depending on the applicant’s work obligations and his daughter’s school schedule. It should be noted that the applicant and his daughter see each other once to twice a week.   Often, after the “official” contact has ended, the applicant calls the child and briefly meets her on the same day in order to give her a present he had bought for her.   It should be pointed out that both the applicant and his ex-wife are constantly in contact with the person in charge of carrying out the supervision on the exercise of parental rights, and neither of them has had any objections to the way that contact between the applicant and his daughter are conducted.   Therefore, the government deems that the urgent individual measure has been fully implemented.   2.   General measures   The judgment has been translated into Croatian language, and, along with the legal analysis, disseminated to all relevant authorities – the Constitutional Court of RoC, the Supreme Court, the County Court in Rijeka, the Municipal Court in Riijeka, the Social Welfare Centre in Rijeka, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, and the Ministry of Family, Veterans’ Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity.   Croatian translation of the judgment was published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (www.mprh.hr).   The government deems that the issue identified in this case as the violation of Article 8 of the Convention is an individual violation. No other similar judgments have been rendered against Croatia regarding this issue, and no other applications with similar allegations have been communicated to Croatia by the ECtHR.   Therefore, no other general measures are required in order to ensure compliance with the judgment, as prescribed by Article 46 of the Convention.   3.   Just satisfaction   Just satisfaction was paid to the applicant on 12 September 2011, and payment information was delivered to the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR on 19 September 2011.