CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 6 February 2023   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 32514/22 and 33284/22 Slađana PETROVIĆ against Croatia and Janja ŠARČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 27 June 2022 and 30 June 2022 respectively communicated on 18 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern women who suspect that their new-born children may have been kidnapped in State-run hospitals and unlawfully given up for adoption (compare Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 21794/08, ECHR 2013). In 1990, 1993 and 1994 respectively, the applicants gave birth in a hospital in Vukovar, a town in Croatia which was under the control of the Serbian authorities for a period of time. After birth, the applicants had regular contact with their babies in the hospital, until they were informed that their babies had suddenly fallen ill and died. In particular, the babies born in 1990 and 1993 were taken to a hospital in Novi Sad in Serbia where they allegedly died, whereas the baby born in 1994 allegedly died in the Vukovar hospital. In 2019 the applicants saw a documentary on “missing babies” in Serbia and suspected that their babies had shared the same fate. They started inquiring with the hospitals in Vukovar and Novi Sad and asking for documents. On 4 June and 6 October 2021 respectively, they lodged a criminal complaint with the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office, arguing that their babies had been kidnapped by the Vukovar and Novi Sad hospital personnel. On 28 February and 1 March 2022 their complaints were rejected as the prosecution for the alleged crimes had become time-barred. According to a news report of February 2022, apart from the applicants, there are other women who suspect that their babies were kidnapped in the 1980s and early 1990s in State-run hospitals in Croatia. Before the Court the applicants complain about the Croatian authorities’ continuing failure to provide them with credible information as to the fate of their babies, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. They also complain that they had no effective domestic remedy for their complaint, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the State discharge its positive obligations under this Article regarding the applicants’ allegations that their babies were kidnapped and given up for unlawful adoption (see Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no.   21794/08, ECHR   2013; Mik and Jovanović v. Serbia (dec.), nos.   9291/14 and 63798/14, 23 March 2021, and compare also the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 20 December 2006 referred to in the latter decision)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Nationality Represented by 1. 32514/22 Petrović v. Croatia 27/06/2022 Slađana PETROVIĆ 1973 Croatian Antonija GALIĆ KONĐA 2. 33284/22 Šarčević v. Croatia 30/06/2022 Janja ŠARČEVIĆ 1962 Croatian Antonija GALIĆ KONĐA