CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2024

.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 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19603/23 Árpád MAGOSÁNYI against Croatia lodged on 8 May 2023 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns minor-offence proceedings against the applicant and his former spouse on charges of domestic violence. In the course of those proceedings, by a decision which became final on 20 December 2022, the domestic courts imposed on the applicant a precautionary measure in the form of a restraining order, prohibiting him from approaching his former spouse and her child within 50 metres, entering their place of residence and making or maintaining direct or indirect contact with them. The measure remained in force until 8 November 2023 when it was terminated ex lege following the applicant’s acquittal. The applicant complains, under Article 13 of the Convention and Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 thereto, about the lack of regular re-examination of the measure contrary to the domestic law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the domestic courts’ decision imposing on the applicant a precautionary measure in the form of a restraining order constitute a restriction on his freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention ( compare Kurt v. Austria [GC], no.   62903/15, § 183, 15 June 2021)?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 (see Pagerie v.   France , no. 24203/16, §§ 177 and 195, 19 January 2023; and Villa v. Italy , no.   19675/06, §§ 45-53, 20 April 2010)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Riener v. Bulgaria , no.   46343/99, §§   138-143, 23 May 2006)?