CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 2022

.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 20 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46198/18 Sanela DAVIDOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 21 September 2018 communicated on 1 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns delayed enforcement of a final judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour in child custody proceedings. On 25 March 2013, after separation from her partner, the applicant was awarded custody of their child (1 year and 4 months old at the time). That judgment became final on 10 July 2013. Following several unsuccessful attempts, the judgment was finally enforced on 14 November 2017. On 25 January 2018 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life but did not award her any compensation for non-pecuniary damage ruling that the finding of the violation represented sufficient redress. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the delay in the enforcement of the final judgment in question which prevented her from seeing her child for more than 4 years and, in particular, about the lack of compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Could 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.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see V.A.M. v. Serbia , no.   39177/05, §§ 145-146, 13 March 2007) ?