31 Aug Custody of the children

In the case Grujić v. Serbia (no. 203/07, 28.08.2018) the European Court of Human Rights found that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s efforts to enforce court orders for contact with his two children. The applicant is a Serbian national.

The applicant lived with his two children, a daughter and son, and their mother until 2001, when the parents separated. In January of that year the local social care centre gave custody of the children to the mother and allowed applicant to have visits every other weekend and during school holidays.

In August 2005 he applied to a court for sole custody and in December 2005 the court issued an interim contact order, which was similar to the old one. From January 2006 the applicant tried to enforce the interim contact order of December 2005. He met various hurdles, including the fact that his daughter would not go with him for meetings and the mother refusing to allow the son to go on his own on those occasions.

The social services and courts arranged various meetings between the parents and the father and the children to discuss the situation. Ultimately, the first-instance court dealing with the case terminated the interim enforcement proceedings in November 2011 and applicant was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant complained that the Serbian authorities had failed to take effective steps to enforce the interim contact order of December 2005.

The Court is mindful of the fact that contact and residence disputes are by their very nature extremely sensitive for all the parties concerned, and it is not necessarily an easy task for the domestic authorities to ensure enforcement of a court order where the behavior of one or both parents is far from constructive. In the present case, the mother’s uncooperative attitude and the daughter’s manifest hostility towards the applicant made it particularly difficult for the domestic authorities to take action to fully enforce the applicant’s contact rights. The Court found that, despite some periods of inactivity, and given the sensitive nature of the case, the domestic authorities did in general act diligently in this case. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 8.

References from the official website of the ECHR