Communicated on 11 December 2017
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 80117/17
C
against Croatia
lodged on 16 November 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, C, is a Croatian national. He was born in 2006. The President of the Section decided that the applicant’s identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He is represented before the Court by his mother (A) who appointed for the applicant a legal representative, Ms J. Biloš, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
By a judgment of X Municipal Court of 14 January 2010, the applicant’s parents were divorced and it was decided that the applicant would live with his mother, A.
On November 2012 the applicant’s father, B, brought a civil claim in X Municipal Court seeking an order for the applicant to live with him. The claim was granted on 3 June 2015 with immediate effect.
A subsequently appealed. This appeal and a constitutional complaint were dismissed. The final decision was adopted by the Constitutional Court on 27 April 2017 and served on A’s representative on 16 May 2017.
The decision of 3 June 2015 was enforced by the police on 15 June 2016. However, on the evening of the same day, C ran away and returned to A.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that in the custody proceedings and the enforcement of the decision adopted in these proceedings, he was not appointed a special guardian ad litem to represent him and to protect his interests, that he was not heard in these proceedings and that the decision to grant custody to the father without any preparation and adaptation period was not in his best interests.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the State’s positive and procedural obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, was the manner in which the custody proceedings were conducted and the decision subsequently adopted in breach of that Article? In particular, was the protection of the child’s best interests ensured in these proceedings and was he given an opportunity to express his own views?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy