CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 April 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8000/21 Stjepan JURIŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 25 January 2021 communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In its judgment Jurišić v. Croatia [Committee], no. 29419/17, 16 January 2020, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of non-enforcement of judicial decisions granting the applicant contact rights with his son. The execution of that judgment is still pending before the Committee of Ministers. In his fresh application with the Court, the applicant submits that on 29   January 2020 the competent court terminated the enforcement of the final court decision granting him contacts because it found that, due to alienation of the child from the father, enforcement of the contacts order would no longer be in the best interest of the child. The applicant’s appeals against that decision were dismissed. In new proceedings, on 2 November 2020 the competent court issued a fresh contacts order, ordering supervised weekly contacts between the applicant and his son and, should those contacts be continuous and after a relationship of trust was established, they could take place every other weekend and part of school holidays. Meanwhile, in July 2020 the child’s mother was found guilty in two sets of criminal proceedings for obstructing the applicant’s contacts with his son and sentenced to suspended prison sentences. The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that despite all the fresh decisions in his case, he has to date not had contacts with his son. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the Court have jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention without encroaching on the prerogatives of the respondent State and the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention in the execution of the Court’s judgment in the case of Jurišić v. Croatia [Committee], no. 29419/17, 16 January 2020 (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 33-39, ECHR 2015; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 60-75, 11 July 2017; V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 19421/15, §§ 46-54, 15 November 2018; see also Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al, §§   183-199, 12 October 2017)?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has the State failed to ensure contact between the applicant and his son, in breach of its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention?