Published on 19 June 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 15910/23
Marica ŠESTO
against Croatia
lodged on 13 April 2023
communicated on 30 May 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a woman who suspects that her new-born child was kidnapped in a State-run hospital and unlawfully given up for adoption.
On 30 November 1986 the applicant gave birth in a hospital in Slavonski Brod in Croatia. She had regular contact with her baby, who seemed healthy. The day after birth she was informed by the hospital personnel that her baby had suddenly fallen ill and died.
In 2019 the applicant saw a documentary on “missing babies” in Serbia and suspected that her baby had shared the same fate. She started inquiring with the hospital and the local birth registry and asking for documents. The gathered information raised suspicions and she lodged a criminal complaint with the Slavonski Brod Municipal State Attorney’s Office, arguing that her baby had been kidnapped by the hospital personnel. On 17 January 2023 her complaint was rejected on the ground that the prosecution for the alleged crime had become time-barred.
Before the Court the applicant complains about the Croatian authorities’ continuing failure to provide her with credible information as to the fate of her baby, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
She also complains that she had no effective domestic remedy for her complaint, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the State discharge its positive obligations under this Article regarding the applicant’s allegations that her baby was kidnapped and given up for unlawful adoption (see Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 21794/08, §§ 68 et seq., ECHR 2013; Mik and Jovanović v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 9291/14 and 63798/14, §§ 43 et seq., 23 March 2021, and compare also the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 20 December 2006 referred to in the latter decision)?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?