CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2023

.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 6 February 2023   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 37199/21 and 7332/22 M.H. against Croatia lodged on 16 July 2021 and 26 January 2022 respectively communicated on 19 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicant’s inability to obtain child support payments from her father. In 2011 a civil court ordered the applicant’s father to pay child support to the applicant in the amount of 2,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) per month. By a judgment of 21 February 2017, a criminal court found the applicant’s father guilty of failing to pay child support and imposed a suspended prison sentence. On 21 January 2020 the applicant applied for revocation of the suspension of the sentence ( prijedlog za opoziv uvjetne osude ) due to the father’s continued failure to pay. Her application was dismissed on 9   December 2020 because the deadline for revocation of the suspended sentence had expired on 7 June 2020, when her request was pending at first instance. Meanwhile, on 12 April 2018 the applicant’s father was again convicted for the failure to pay child support and imposed a suspended sentence. The applicant again unsuccessfully requested revocation of the suspension of that sentence. The applicant’s father died in November 2021. The applicant complains, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to enforce a final civil court judgment in her favour, in particular the fact that a criminal court allowed for the deadline for the revocation of the suspension of the sentence to expire before deciding her request. She also complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that she had been deprived of her right to receive child support and therefore of substantive financial means during a very sensitive period of her childhood, whereas the perpetrator had not been adequately sanctioned. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no.   33509/04, ECHR 2009, and Matrakas and   Others v. Poland and Greece , no.   47268/06, 7 November 2013)? In particular, was the period during which she was unable to enforce the final civil court judgment in her favour, given the particular circumstances of the case, excessive?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the State under a positive obligation to facilitate the applicant’s recovery of her child support claims and/or to effectively sanction the perpetrator for failure to pay? If so, has such a positive obligation been complied with?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy for her Convention grievances, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?