CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 11 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42650/15 Dejan RISTOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 18 August 2015 communicated on 22 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2006 the applicant applied for a divorce and, soon thereafter, his wife (B.R.) filed a criminal complaint against him on charges of sexual abuse of their then three-year-old daughter. Following the rejection of this criminal complaint by the competent domestic court in 2007, B.R. filed a claim with the then Municipal Court in Gornji Milanovac, seeking a restraining order and the termination of the applicant’s parental rights. On 26 December 2007 the same court issued an interim order, and, in so doing, inter alia , prohibited the applicant’s contact with his daughter, pending the final outcome of the ongoing civil proceedings. On 8 November 2013 the Čačak Court of First Instance dismissed B.R.’s claim. On 3 April 2014 and 20   November 2014, the Kragujevac Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld that judgment, respectively. On 22 July 2015 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time and his right to respect for his family life had been violated and awarded him 700 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the length of civil proceedings at issue which prevented him from seeing his child for almost seven years and, in particular, about the amount awarded by the Constitutional Court.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant still be considered a “victim”, within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention, in view of the Constitutional Court’s decision?   2. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see V.A.M. v. Serbia , no. 39177/05, §§ 98-111, 13 March 2007)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see V.A.M. v. Serbia , no. 39177/05, §§ 145-146, 13 March 2007) ?