Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 180
December 2014
Kruškić and Others v. Croatia (dec.) - 10140/13
Decision 25.11.2014 [Section I]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Refusal of claim by grandparents for custody of their grandchildren: inadmissible
Facts – The first and second applicants were the grandparents of the third and fourth applicants, who were born in 2006 and 2005 respectively. In 2008 the children’s mother and in 2011 their father left the household where they had lived with the four applicants. Litigation ensued between the grandparents and the father concerning custody of and access to the children. The domestic courts ultimately granted custody to the father, who had been living with the children since 2013.
Law
Article 34 (Locus standi of the grandparents to lodge an application on behalf of the grandchildren): The children’s parents had never been deprived of parental responsibility nor were the children ever placed under the guardianship of their grandparents or otherwise formally entrusted to them. Furthermore, as of December 2013 the children were represented in the domestic proceedings by a guardian ad litem. Given the findings of the domestic courts, the grandparents had, at least arguably, a conflict of interest with their grandchildren. Thus, in the particular circumstances of the case the grandparents were not entitled to lodge an application on behalf of their grandchildren.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione personae).
Article 8: There could be “family life” between grandparents and grandchildren where there were sufficiently close family ties between them. In the instant case, the grandparents had lived with their grandchildren for seven and eight years respectively and the relations between them thus constituted “family life” protected under Article 8. However, in normal circumstances the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren was different in nature and degree from the relationship between parent and child and thus by its very nature generally called for a lesser degree of protection. The right of grandparents to respect for their family life with their grandchildren primarily entailed the right to maintain a normal relationship through contacts between them. However, such contacts generally took place with the agreement of the person exercising parental responsibility and was thus normally at the discretion of the child’s parents.
In situations where children were left without parental care, grandparents could under Article 8 also be entitled to have their grandchildren formally entrusted into their care. However, the circumstances of the present case could not give rise to such a right because it could not be argued that the grandchildren had been abandoned by their father, who was away for only a month and a half while leaving them in the care of their grandparents. Since Article 8 could not be construed as conferring any other custody-related right on grandparents, the decisions of the domestic courts in the custody proceedings had not amounted to interference with their right to respect for their family life.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also Bronda v. Italy, 22430/93, 9 June 1998; G.H.B. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 42455/98, 4 May 2000; Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], 39221/98 and 41963/98, 13 July 2000, Information Note 20; and Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, 16318/07, 27 April 2010, Information Note 129. See also the Factsheets on Protection of minors, Children's rights, and Parental rights)
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy