CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27296/22 Slaviša ŠIMETIĆ against Serbia lodged on 25 May 2022 communicated on 22 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of the applicant’s contact rights with his children, born in 2006 and 2008, respectively, granted by a final judgment of 27 May 2016. On 26 December 2019 and 28 October 2021, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s contact rights. It determined that the relevant domestic authorities had failed to act adequately and promptly in the enforcement of those rights which led to an irreversible deterioration of the applicant’s relationship with his children. The applicant was also awarded 1,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage in total. 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 27 May 2016 he was deprived of contact with his children and 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 decisions of 26 December 2019 and 28 October 2021? 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 , cited above, §§ 123 and 135-136; Krivošej v. Serbia , no. 42559/08, §§ 50-54, 13   April 2010; and V.A.M. v. Serbia , no. 39177/05, §§ 137-144, 13 March 2007)?