BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ivan GOLOB v Slovenia - 42158/06 [2011] ECHR 1021 (14 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1021.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1021 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
42158/06
by Ivan GOLOB
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Dean Spielmann,
President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M.
Zupančič,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Ann
Power,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger,
judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 September 2006,
Having regard to the information submitted by the respondent Government and the comments submitted in reply by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivan Golob (“the applicant”), is a Slovenian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Solkan, Slovenia. The applicant lodged the application on his own and his daughter’s, A.’s, behalf. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Verdir, State Attorney.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Following the separation of the applicant and his daughter’s mother, the latter obtained custody of the daughter.
Subsequently, on 17 November 2003, the applicant lodged a request for determination of contact arrangements with his daughter. The Ajdovščina Welfare Office issued a decision on those contact arrangements on 6 May 2004. It determined that the applicant and his daughter should have weekly contact and contact during holidays. As regards the latter, it stated that the applicant and his daughter should spend one week during the winter holidays and three weeks during the summer holidays together. The mother appealed.
On 1 March 2005 the Ministry for Labour, Family and Social Matters (“the Ministry”) quashed the part of the Welfare Office’s decision that concerned contact arrangements during the holidays. It found that the decision had lacked an indication of the exact periods of contact to be put in place during the holidays. On 14 March 2005, the case was transferred to the Nova Gorica District Court, which, further to a reform in this field, had acquired jurisdiction in the matter.
On 7 June 2005 a hearing was held before the court. At the hearing, the judge noted that the subject of the proceedings was restricted to contact arrangements during holidays. On the same date the applicant requested that an interim decision be issued regulating contact arrangements during holidays and stipulating a physical taking of his daughter from her mother in the case of her non-compliance with the decision.
On 15 June 2005 the court rejected the applicant’s request for an interim decision. It relied on the Welfare Office’s report and a psychologist’s report indicating that the applicant’s daughter did not want to have weekly contact with the applicant, as a result of which no visits had been carried out at that time. The court found that provisional holiday contact arrangements might therefore not be in the child’s interests and that it was better to wait for evidence to be produced in the proceedings and a final decision reached on that basis. The applicant appealed. On 9 November 2005 the Koper Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal concerning the request for an interim decision, finding that the lower court had properly conducted the proceedings and had been led by the best interests of the child.
In the meantime, the applicant and his daughter also lodged a request for contact arrangements between the daughter and relatives on the applicant’s side of the family. On 14 July 2005 the District Court joined the request for contact arrangements between the daughter and her relatives to the proceedings concerning contact during holidays. On 19 July 2005 the court declared inadmissible the request for contact arrangements with the aforementioned relatives, finding that neither the applicant nor his daughter, who was still a minor, had standing to pursue such proceedings. On 9 November 2005 the Koper Higher Court upheld that decision.
On 18 August 2005 the applicant’s daughter’s mother lodged a request for new (reduced) weekly contact arrangements between the applicant and his daughter which would replace those set out in the Welfare Office’s decision of 6 May 2004. She also requested that an interim decision be issued in that regard. The latter request was rejected on 30 August 2008.
On 7 February 2006 the District Court held a hearing. Both parties confirmed that the weekly contact arrangements as set out in the Welfare Office’s decision of 6 May 2004 had been complied with since July 2005. Moreover, the applicant and his daughter had also taken a holiday together in November and December 2005.
At the hearing of 7 February 2006 the court decided the case and terminated the proceedings. Having regard to several Welfare Office reports, as well as expert reports and statements from the parties, it determined new weekly contact arrangements, which were similar to those set out in the Welfare Office’s decision. In also decided that the applicant and his daughter should spend the winter school holidays and four weeks during the summer holidays together and specified the way in which these arrangements should be implemented in practice.
Both parties appealed. On 12 September 2006 the Koper Higher Court quashed the part of the lower court’s decision concerning the weekly contact arrangements and slightly modified the way in which the arrangements for the holidays should be implemented in practice. It found that there had been no basis for the lower court to replace the Welfare Office’s final decision of 6 May 2004 as regards the part of that decision concerning weekly contact arrangements, which therefore remained in force. The Higher Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 21 November 2006.
B. Relevant domestic law
As regards the relevant provisions of domestic family law see Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, §§ 63-73, 1 December 2009.
COMPLAINTS
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings determining holiday contact arrangements.
Citing Articles 3, 7 and 8 of the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, he complained that the courts had not been proactive in handling his request for regulation of holiday contact arrangements.
Relying upon Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant also complained of the courts’ failure to deliver in due time an enforceable decision regarding holiday contact arrangements. In particular, the applicant complained about the court’s decision rejecting the request for provisional holiday contact arrangements, and of delays in the related proceedings.
Finally, the applicant complained that Article 13 was violated in his case.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the applicant lodged a request for determination of contact arrangements with his daughter on 17 November 2003. The Ajdovščina Welfare Office decided on the matter, including holiday contact arrangements, on 6 May 2004, which was about six months after the applicant had made a request to that effect. This decision was quashed by the Ministry’s decision of 1 March 2005 and the holiday contact arrangements were subsequently determined on 7 February 2006 in the court proceedings, where further evidence was adduced. The District Court’s decision was issued less than a year after the Ministry’s decision. Seven months later, the appellate court decided on the parties’ appeals and slightly modified the holiday contact arrangements.
Having regard to the above and to what was at stake for the applicant, the Court does not consider that the length of the proceedings, which lasted three years across two administrative and two judicial instances, was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
As regards the issue under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court observes that decisions were promptly taken by the domestic courts and does not discern any periods of inactivity which would indicate the authorities’ failure to comply with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, §§ 150-6, 30 November 2010). In addition, the Court observes that although the applicant seems to have been obstructed from having contact with his daughter during the holidays in 2004, as is also true with regard to his weekly contact with her, which is not the subject of the present application, the situation subsequently improved. Since July 2005 the applicant and his daughter have had a regular weekly contact. In addition, in November and December 2005 they spent a holiday together. In February 2006 the first-instance court’s decision regulating holiday contact arrangements was issued and the file contains no documents which would indicate that contact has been obstructed in the subsequent period.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that this part of the application should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Dean Spielmann Registrar President