CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 13 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34524/23 Aleksandar PJEVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 7 September 2023 communicated on 27 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the Serbian authorities to secure the contact between the applicant and his son residing in Russia. The applicant, a Serbian national, was married to L.P., a Russian national, with whom they have a child N., born in 2010. In 2012 that marriage was dissolved, and N. stayed in Russia with his mother L.P. while the applicant moved back to Serbia. On 4 June 2012 the applicant initiated court proceedings in Serbia seeking inter alia to determine the contact arrangement between the child and himself. After several remittals, on 3 October 2018 the Belgrade Court of Appeals ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case and terminated the proceedings. On 15 May 2019 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law and ultimately on 27 April 2023 the Constitutional Court also ruled against the applicant by a decision served on the applicant’s lawyer on 16 May 2023. The applicant relies on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the applicant’s case heard within a reasonable time, as required by the same Article?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? More precisely, having regard to the ruling of the Belgrade Court of Appeals that it had no jurisdiction over the case, has the State failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to assist the applicant in securing his right to be in contact with his son (see Pjević v. Russia , no.   1764/18, §§ 42-48, 19 October 2021)? Did the domestic authorities comply with the requirement of speediness inherent in proceedings concerning contact rights between a parent and a child (see, for example, Maire v. Portugal , no. 48206/99, § 74, ECHR 2003-VII, Ribić v. Croatia , no.   27148/12, § 91, 2 April 2015; and Popadić v. Serbia , no. 7833/12, §§ 85 in fine and 100, 20 September 2022)?