CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 14 December 2015   THIRD SECTION Application no. 203/07 Boško GRUJIĆ against Serbia lodged on 3 June 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.   The applicant, Mr Boško Grujić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Nova Pazova. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant has two children with his former partner, M.K. 4.     Their daughter and son, J.G. and M.G, were born in 1992 and 1994 respectively. 5.     By a decision of the Stara Pazova Social Care Centre ( Centar za socijalni rad Stara Pazova ) of 9 January 2001, custody of the children was given to the mother. 6.     In the same decision the Social Care Centre ordered the mother to allow the applicant contact with the children every other weekend from 6   p.m. on Friday to 6 p.m. on Sunday and during the first half of the summer and winter school holidays. The decision provided that the applicant would collect and return the children outside the mother’s family home. 7.     On 30 June 2005 the Social Care Centre suspended enforcement of the decision at the applicant’s request. 8.     On 11 August 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Stara Pazova Municipal Court, seeking sole custody of the children. 9.     On 27 December 2005 the court issued an interim contact order, again allowing the applicant contact with the children every other weekend from 6   p.m. on Friday to 6 p.m. on Sunday and during the first half of the summer and winter school holidays. 10.     On 18 January 2006, at the applicant’s request, the Stara Pazova Municipal Court ordered enforcement of the interim contact order. 11.     Despite several attempts to enforce it, it would appear that the applicant had no contact with his children between 2006 and 2009. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Family Act (Porodični zakon; published in OG RS no. 8/05) 12.     Article 65(3) and (4) provides that a child’s opinion will, in all matters and within proceedings concerning his or her rights, be given due consideration whilst taking into account his or her age and maturity. Further, a child ten years of age or older may freely and directly express his or her opinion in any proceedings concerning his or her rights. 2.     Enforcement Procedure Act (Zakon o izvršnom postupku; published in OG RS no. 125/04) 13.     Article 224, while placing special emphasis on the best interests of the child, states that there will be an initial period of three days for voluntary compliance with a child custody and/or contact order. Beyond that, however, fines will be imposed and, ultimately, if necessary, the child will be handed over forcibly, in co-operation with the local social care centre. COMPLAINT 14.     The applicant does not refer to any provisions of the Convention. In substance, however, he complains that he has had no contact with his children owing to the respondent State’s failure to enforce its interim contact order of 27 December 2005.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant suffered a breach of his right to respect for his family life as a consequence of the respondent State’s failure to enforce the Stara Pazova Municipal Court contact order of 27 December 2005?