CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 February 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31530/20 Dejan KOSTIĆ against Serbia lodged on 30 June 2020 communicated on 24 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of the applicant’s contact rights with his son granted by a final judgment of 20 February 2009. The boy was born in 2003. On 28 November 2019 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s contact rights. It determined that the relevant domestic authorities had failed to act properly and promptly in the enforcement of those rights which led to an irreversible deterioration of the applicant’s relationship with his son. The Constitutional Court also established that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated due to the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings. The applicant was, lastly, awarded 1,200   euros for the non-pecuniary damage which he had suffered. While relying on numerous provisions of the Convention, the applicant essentially complains that as a result of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment of 20 February 2009 he was deprived of having proper contact with his son and thus from effectively exercising his parental rights.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Could the applicant still be considered a victim of the alleged violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, in view of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 28   November 2019? In particular, could the redress awarded to the applicant thereby be considered appropriate and sufficient (see, for example, Milovanović v. Serbia , no.   56065/10, § 96, 8   October 2019)? 2.     Should the answer to the above question be in the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Milovanović, §§   123 and 135-36, cited above ; Krivošej v. Serbia , no. 42559/08, §§   50-54, 13   April 2010 ; and V.A.M. v. Serbia , no. 39177/05, §§   137-44, 13 March 2007)?