Published on 2 March 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 47637/22
Tijana VUJOŠEVIĆ
against Serbia
lodged on 1 October 2022
communicated on 12 February 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair trial and to respect for her family life by the Serbian courts dealing with her request for the return of her daughter to her habitual place of residence (the United States of America) in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”).
On 5 July 2017, with the applicant’s consent, the child’s father, A.I., took their three-year-old daughter to Serbia. They allegedly agreed that he would return the child to the applicant on 5 November 2017, but he refused to do so.
On 8 October 2018 the applicant lodged an application with the United States Department of State, acting as the designated Central Authority under the Hague Convention, seeking the return of the child to her. On 31 October 2018 the United States Department of State forwarded the application to the Serbian Ministry of Justice, which, on the basis of the applicant’s request, initiated domestic court proceedings on 11 January 2019. On 28 May 2021, following proceedings before two levels of jurisdiction and one remittal, the Belgrade High Court rejected the applicant’s request for the return of the child, finding that the proceedings before the Serbian courts had been initiated more than one year after the date of the child’s wrongful retention and that the child had already adapted to her new place of residence. The applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed by the Constitutional Court by a decision served on the applicant on 3 June 2022.
The applicant relies on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in the light of the proceedings for the return of her child to the United States?
2. Did the domestic authorities comply with the requirement of speediness inherent in proceedings for the return of children (see, for example, Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 74, ECHR 2003-VIIM, G.S. v. Georgia, no. 2361/13, §§ 63-64, 21 July 2015; and V. v. Poland, no. 16202/14, § 76, 1 April 2021)?