CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 novembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 157 November 2012 V.K. v. Croatia - 38380/08 Judgment 27.11.2012 [Section I] Article 12 Marry Remarriage delayed by length of divorce proceedings: violation Facts – The applicant married in 2002. His wife gave birth a year later. In 2004 the applicant petitioned for divorce. The parties agreed that the marriage should be dissolved, but not on the arrangements for child maintenance and contact. In 2005 the applicant brought a separate action contesting his paternity. He lodged several requests for expedition of the divorce proceedings and for a partial judgment dissolving the marriage. In 2008 the county court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The applicant also alerted the domestic courts on several occasions of his intention to remarry. In January 2010 the parties reached an agreement on child maintenance and contact between the applicant and the child, and the marriage was dissolved the same day. The applicant remarried in September 2010. In his application to the European Court, he complained, inter alia , that the length of the divorce proceedings had impaired his right to remarry. Law – Article 6: The period to be taken into account had amounted to five years and eight months at one level of jurisdiction. Therefore, the length of the proceedings had failed to satisfy the reasonable-time requirement. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 12: A failure by the domestic authorities to conduct divorce proceedings within a reasonable time could, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 12 of the Convention. It was noteworthy that the domestic legal system required divorce proceedings to be treated as urgent and did not allow individuals who were already married to conclude another marriage. Therefore, a failure on the part of the domestic authorities to conduct divorce proceedings with the required degree of urgency might impair the right to marry of an individual who had sought to have his previous marriage dissolved in order to marry again, or who had acquired a serious and genuine opportunity to remarry after instituting divorce proceedings. In the instant case, the parties had agreed that their marriage should be dissolved. The applicant had asked the domestic courts on more than one occasion to pronounce the divorce in a partial judgment and to decide the other issues relating to the proceedings separately, as the domestic system permitted. However, for more than five years the domestic courts had either ignored or dismissed his requests without giving any reasons. The Court further noted that on at least two occasions, when complaining about the length of the proceedings, the applicant had informed the domestic courts that he was planning to remarry, and that the lengthy divorce proceedings had been preventing him from doing so. These arguments had been substantiated by the fact that he had indeed remarried shortly after his first marriage had been dissolved. Accordingly, attaching importance to the failure of the domestic authorities to conduct the divorce proceedings efficiently and to take into account the specific circumstances of those proceedings, such as the agreement of the parties to divorce, a possibility of rendering a partial decision and the urgent nature of these proceedings under domestic law, the Court considered that the applicant had been left in a state of prolonged uncertainty which had amounted to an unreasonable restriction on his right to marry. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). The Court also found a violation of Article   13. Article 41: EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © 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