CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 avril 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 140 April 2011 Gluhaković v. Croatia - 21188/09 Judgment 12.4.2011 [Section I] Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for family life Failure of State to take applicant’s personal circumstances into account when arranging contact with his daughter: violation   Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Individual measures Respondent State required to secure effective contact between the applicant and his daughter   Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant, a divorced father, complained that he was unable to exercise his right to contact with his daughter as the domestic authorities had failed to take into account his work schedule or to arrange for a suitable meeting place. Despite the fact that he worked in Vicenza (Italy) for periods of three full days with the fourth day off, he was granted contact at counselling centres in Rijeka (Croatia), without suitable facilities, at a fixed time each week, making it impossible for him to attend. This had resulted in his losing contact with his daughter since July 2007. Law – Article 8: The applicant’s right to see his daughter at regular intervals had been acknowledged by the domestic courts and fell within the scope of “family life”. Accordingly, the national courts were obliged to ensure effective exercise of the applicant’s right to contact. The Court accepted that travelling from Vicenza to Rijeka on a fixed day had made it difficult for the applicant to exercise his right of contact. It noted that the national courts at all levels had constantly ignored both the reality of the applicant’s situation and the counselling centre’s objections concerning the suitability of the place designated for meetings. They had ordered that the meetings be held in counselling and welfare centres, without assessing the suitability of the premises. This had resulted in the applicant having to go to significant lengths to organise his replacement at work, to meetings being held in unsuitable places such as the kitchen or offices at the centre and finally to the complete cessation of contact between the applicant and his daughter in July 2007, as the only place available for the meetings had been a corridor at the welfare centre. Even though the domestic courts had finally ordered in 2008 that the meetings be held once a week when the applicant’s work schedule allowed, they had failed to state where the meetings should be held, leaving that issue for the parents to decide. Bearing in mind that the applicant had had no contact with his daughter since July 2007, the Court held that the national authorities had failed to adequately secure the applicant’s right to effective contact with his daughter. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 46: Exceptionally and given the particular circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, the Court for the first time issued the direction that the respondent State had to ensure effective contact between the applicant and his daughter at a time compatible with his work schedule and on suitable premises. Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes