FIRST SECTION
Application no. 27148/12
Zdenko RIBIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 6 April 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zdenko Ribić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms I. Bojić, an advocate practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 April 1992 the applicant married Ms Z.J.
On 9 October 1993 Z.J. gave birth to their son I.R.
Two months later Z.J., together with their son, moved out from the flat in which she had lived with the applicant.
1. Civil proceedings for divorce and child custody
In 1996 Z.J. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking divorce, the sole custody of, and the maintenance for their son.
At the hearing held on 22 May 1998 and in his written submission of 9 March 1999 the applicant asked the court to issue a provisional measure whereby it would provisionally regulate his contacts with his son. However, the court never decided on the applicant’s requests.
On 26 October 2001 the Municipal Court adopted a judgment whereby it: (a) divorced the marriage between the applicant and Z.J., (b) awarded the sole custody of their son to Z.J., (c) granted the applicant visitation rights, and (d) ordered the applicant to regularly pay a certain amount of money as maintenance for his son.
Following an appeal by both parties, on 12 February 2002 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment in part concerning visitation rights and maintenance and remitted the case. At the same time it upheld the contested judgment in part concerning divorce and custody.
In the resumed proceedings, on 23 July 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court adopted a judgment whereby it again granted the applicant visitation rights and issued a detailed visitation schedule.
On 12 April 2005 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by Z.J. and upheld the first-instance judgment. The first-instance judgment of 23 July 2004 became final when the second-instance judgment of 12 April 2005 was served on both parties, that is, on 29 June 2005.
2. Enforcement proceedings
(a) First enforcement proceedings
As Z.J. refused to comply with the above judgment of 23 July 2004 and enable the applicant to exercise his visitation rights, on 12 May 2005 he applied for enforcement of that judgment before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
On 25 August 2005 that court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) whereby it ordered Z.J., at the risk of fine of 3,000 Croatian kunas (HRK), to allow the applicant to exercise his visitation rights.
On 8 November 2005 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by Z.J. and upheld the writ.
On 22 December 2005 the Zagreb Municipal Court issued a decision whereby it fined Z.J. HRK 3,000 for non-compliance with the writ of execution, and again ordered her, at the risk of further fine of HRK 6,000, to allow the applicant to exercise his visitation rights. Z.J. appealed but on 21 November 2006 the County Court dismissed her appeal.
On 30 November 2006 the Zagreb Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued a new writ of execution whereby it ordered a bailiff to take, with the assistance of a social worker and a police officer, the applicant’s son from Z.J. or a third person each time the applicant was entitled pursuant to the visitation schedule to exercise his visitation rights, and return him to her afterwards.
On 14 February 2007 the Municipal Court decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had not advanced the costs of enforcement. The applicant first on 7 March 2007 appealed against that decision but, on 29 March 2007 withdrew that appeal and, eventually, on 23 November 2007 withdrew even his application for enforcement of 12 May 2005.
Accordingly, on 4 December 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings.
(b) Second enforcement proceedings
(i) Enforcement proceedings
Meanwhile, on 23 April 2007 the applicant again applied for enforcement of the above judgment of 23 July 2004 before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
On 6 December 2007 that court issued a writ of execution whereby it ordered a bailiff to take, with the assistance of a social worker and a police officer, the applicant’s son from Z.J. or a third person each time the applicant was entitled pursuant to the visitation schedule to exercise his visitation rights, and return him to her afterwards.
On 24 December 2007 Z.J. appealed against the writ and at the same time sought that the enforcement be postponed.
On 6 February 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed Z.J. request for postponement of the enforcement. On 25 February 2008 Z.J. appealed against that decision.
On 28 January 2001 the Municipal Court forwarded Z.J.’s appeals of 24 December 2007 and 25 February 2008 to the Zagreb County Court for a decision.
By a letter of 19 April 2011 the County Court returned the case file to the Municipal Court asking it to correct certain errors in the first-instance proceedings.
(ii) The proceedings following the applicant’s request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time
In the meantime, on 10 June 2009 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the above enforcement proceedings.
On 26 September 2011 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and: (a) awarded him HRK 5,000 in compensation, (b) ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to correct the errors indicated in the Zagreb County Court’s letter of 19 April 2011 within a month, and (c) ordered the Zagreb County Court to decide on Z.J.’s appeals of 24 December 2007 and 25 February 2008 within three months upon receiving the case file again from the Municipal Court.
On 9 October 2011 the applicant’s son turned eighteen and became an adult. Accordingly, the above enforcement proceedings became obsolete.
3. Administrative proceedings before the social welfare centre
Meanwhile, on 20 March 2003 the Zagreb Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Zagreb) of its own motion issued a decision whereby it provisionally granted the applicant visitation rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final, and issued a visitation schedule.
However, following an appeal by Z.J., on 22 September 2003 the competent Ministry, as the second-instance administrative authority, quashed the Centre’s decision and remitted the case.
In the resumed proceedings, on 22 December 2003 the Social Welfare Centre issued a new decision whereby it again provisionally granted the applicant visitation rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final, and issued a new visitation schedule.
On 13 July 2004 the competent Ministry dismissed an appeal by Z.J. and upheld the Centre’s decision. Z.J. then brought an action in the Administrative Court against the Ministry’s decision, which that court dismissed on 17 February 2005.
Meanwhile, on 15 October 2004 the applicant applied for enforcement of the Social Welfare Centre’s decision of 22 December 2003. However, it would appear that before 29 June 2005, that is, the date on which the judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court of 23 July 2004 in the above civil proceedings became final and thus superseded the decision the applicant sought to enforce, the Social Welfare Centre did not even issue an enforcement order.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that, by failing to secure his regular contacts with his son, which were necessary to maintain family ties between them, the domestic authorities breached their positive obligation to respect for his family life. In particular, the applicant complains that in the period between the time his son was only two months old and the time he turned eighteen, he saw him only once.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the domestic authorities in the present case failed to ensure the applicant’s regular contacts with his son, which were necessary to maintain family ties between them (see Cengiz Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 16192/06, 6 December 2011; and Gluhaković v. Croatia, no. 21188/09, 12 April 2011)?
2. If so, has there been a breach of the State’s positive obligation to respect for the applicant’s family life, as required by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
3. The Government are also invited to provide the Court with complete case-files of judicial and administrative proceedings concerning the applicant’s visitation rights.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy