CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 janvier 2025

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15535/23 Miroslava LAZIĆ against Serbia lodged on 7 December 2022 communicated on 2 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2014 the applicant became a foster mother and a legal guardian of Ž.P. and Y., a brother and sister, ten months and 7 years old, respectively, at the time. In 2018 Ž.P. was adopted by a Swedish family and left Serbia. The applicant, acting as Y.’s legal guardian, lodged a claim in civil court seeking the annulment of the adoption on the ground that it had not been in Y.’s best interest to be separated from her biological brother. During these proceedings the applicant’s guardianship over Y. was terminated by a decision of a competent administrative authority and a new guardian was appointed. The new guardian withdrew the claim. The applicant also participated in several other domestic proceedings in which she contested different decisions regarding her guardianship and foster care of Y. and Ž.P., and lodged constitutional appeals in that respect. On 14 September 2024 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a fair trial had been violated in the proceedings concerning the guardianship over Y. and annulled the contested decision, following which the applicant lodged a request for the reopening of the proceedings for the annulment of the adoption. These proceedings are pending. All other constitutional appeals were dismissed. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the adoption and the subsequent lack of contact with Ž.P. violated her right to respect for her family life. Furthermore, relying on Article 6 the Convention, she complains that the flaws in the adoption proceedings and in the subsequent proceedings for the annulment of the adoption violated her rights of access to a court and to a fair hearing. Finally, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant claims that these flaws deprived her of an effective legal remedy to assert her Article 8 complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, §§ 138-45, 27   November 2023)? In particular:   (i)     was the claim for the annulment of Ž.P.’s adoption an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention?   (ii)     did the applicant invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights on which she now wishes to rely before the Court?   2.     Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the relationship between the applicant and Ž.P. constitute “family life” within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see V.D. and Others v. Russia , no. 72931/10, §§ 90-93, 9 April 2019)? If it did, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the adoption order made in respect of Ž.P. and the lack of contact between them ever since (see V.D. and Others v. Russia , cited above, §§ 110-22 and 125-31, and Nazarenko v.   Russia , no. 39438/13, §§ 65-68, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?   4.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings concerning the annulment of the adoption order and the applicant’s request to maintain contact with Ž.P.? If so:   (i)     did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with this Article?   (ii)     did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations?   5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   Lastly, the Government are invited to clarify and submit copies of the relevant legal framework and/or practice concerning the possibility of contact between the applicant and Ž.P. after the international adoption.