D.G. and SG. against Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 20. May 2025. Done, and 24. June of the same year announced the verdict in the caseD.G. and SG. against Serbia, No. 61347/21.

The verdict is unanimouslybrought.

Circumstances Case

The applicants (D.G.) and Mother (SG.) of the child M., born in 2014. and had two more children (born in 2001 and 2002) in relation to which the applicant was completely deprived of parental rights, and the applicant was partially. The children are housed in the foster family, all through the Center for Social Work A. (hereinafter: Center A.). In addition, the applicant has a daughter from an extramarital connection (born 2013).

Dana 16. August 2017, after the alleged report that the child was unattended, Center A was performed by the Field of Applicants while the applicant was absent to perform short-lived seasonal agricultural work on nearby fields. According to the Clerk of the Center A, the child, then old, was found in the yard while playing in an unsatisfactory life and security environment, in the presence of his grandmother who has not shown the ability to take appropriate care. In this time, the other applicant, the father's father, served prison due to domestic violence in the period from 2009. until 2012. year, and was on the obligatory rehabilitation of alcoholism since December 2016. to August 2020. years.

As a consequence, center A has taken an urgent measure of temporary accommodation in a child in the foster family and informed the applicant. After returning to the reduction of appropriate explanation, the conclusion that orders temporary accommodation of minor M. in the foster family was eventually confirmed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare in March 2018. and by the Administrative Court 31. October 2018. years. October 2018. years. October 2018

In May 2019 years, Center A has launched proceedings against the applicants to deprive parental rights. The applicants demanded a temporary measure that they requested that the child settled into their household by the end of the procedure, or, alternatively, to have access to a child and regain the right to maintain personal contacts. Civil procedure for deprivation of parental rights is finally completed by being deprived of parental rights fully in relation to the minor M., but the applicants declare the audit to the Supreme Court in this regard. In the meantime, domestic courts have determined the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time, ordered the acceleration of the procedure and awarded the amount of € 400.00 in the name of the intangible damage compensation.

For all this time, despite the findings and opinions of judicial experts gradually introducing the final connection of the family, the right to contact between the applicants, based sporadically based on the decision on the provision of temporary measures on the proposal of the applicants. It turned out to be since August 2017., under the supervision of the A. and other competent social protection institutions from K, Organized only rare contacts first of the applicant and her son, and later between the applicants. Mothers and father and minor m, their son.

Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures

The applicants filed a court 11. December 2021. years.

In the representations, they complained about the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. Convention for Privacy and Family Life referred to in Article 8. Convention, due to the initial and continuous accommodation of their son M. in Foster family, due to lack of regular maintenance of personal contact with him and length The procedure for depriving parental rights in relation to him, as well as because they did not have a remedy in relation to these complaints.

The Court underlined all complaints of the applicants under Article 8 of the Convention.

Decision Court

The Court noticed that, as the government pointed out, the applicantsdid not submit a constitutional complaint Against the Judgment of the Administrative Court of 31. October 2018, which confirmed administrative decisions on the accommodation M. in the foster family. The Court also noted that the Government submitted a decision of the Constitutional Court as in the case of applicants, ie the accommodation of a child in the Carefield of the Center for Social Work and Starting the Procedure by the same center for deprivation of parental rights. The Constitutional Court appreciated the applicant's appeal in this case, although not exhausted all other legal funds.

The decision of the Constitutional Court indicated by the Government shows with enough clarity that the applicants could submit a constitutional complaint and that the Constitutional Court would consider its merits. Sam suspect that the Constitutional Court may not react with sufficient care to influence the accommodation M. in foster family cannot make such a remedy in an ineffective family. However, the applicants did not even attempt to useconstitutional complaint.

Consequently, these complaints are the courtrejected in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 st. 1. And 4. Conventiondue to the inexhaustion of domestic remedies.

Furthermore, the Court found that M. was in the foster family of 16. August 2017, or more than seven years and six months. After the initial decision on accommodation in the foster family, there was no further assessment of the possibility of returning to the child to the applicants.

The Court found that none of the domestic authorities had ever tried to determine why regular contact between the applicant and M. The Court had determined and that it was The applicant came to the center K. on two scheduled meetings with minor M. - 7. and 20. October 2017 years. The Court also stated its rights to personal contact with M. In his appeal from 1. September 2017. In the same year, the applicant complained that it had no contact with M. since he was placed in the foster family. Dana 22. September 2017 She asked the Center to contact with M. She was 9. December 2017 again appealed to the center of A. On the lack of regular contact with M. and said that she saw him only twice since he was placed in the foster family. In his appeal from 22. January 2018. years against the decision of the Center A. of 29. December 2017, the applicant regained the Ministry again for lack of contact with M., her son. She stated that in the period between 12. March and November 2018. Year she was not able to respond to the Call Center A. Due to her legs and therapy she received therefore. In connection with this, the applicant has attached medical documentation and has already submitted the same documentation to the center of A. and that the phone called on the center A. to inform employees that it was unable to come into their premises. However, there is no explanation again why the contact between the applicant and M. did not continue after that.

The Court pointed out that the state has a positive commitment under Article 8. The Convention undertakes to merge children with parents. In this case, the domestic authorities have implemented only limited checks, whether it is possible to make a connection between parents and a child, but it did not constitute enough and lasting effort that could reasonably expect.

The court emphasized that the least of the authorities are expected to re-evaluate the family situation from time to time, because otherwise the possibility of merging will gradually disappear, especially if parents do not permit contact at all or it is very rare. Restrictions and ban on access to the child did not prepare the field for reunification of the family, but the contrary made it difficult. In this case, a distinctly negative attitude of domestic bodies, who have persisted, has not made efforts to seriously consider foster care and collect all relevant evidence of possible improvement in family conditions.

The court is He noticed that the attitude of employees A. According to the applicants, he was largely involved in the presentation of minor M. into foster family, such as the applicant's parental rights, the conviction of the applicant for domestic violence and his alcoholism. Although these facts are in no way insignificant, there was no progress to assess whether there was any progress in the applicants' ability of M., the applicant's claim since 2016. years, nor how was his attitude towards previous works of domestic violence.

The lack of an adequate initial response to the authority of the situation and their lack of effort between M. and the applicant, and the possible reunification of M. from the parents, which is obvious from the competent social protection institutions on their latest meetings at the end of 2024. And early 2025. years.

These considerations were sufficient to conclude that domestic bodies did not take adequate and timely steps to resolve the issue of continuous accommodation M. in the foster family and that they did not provide regular personal contacts between the applicants and their child.

Therefore the courtdetermined a violation of the rights of applicants to respect their family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention In that regard.

The Court found that in cases related to family issues for the applicant also relevant consideration and a detailed analysis of possible consequences that the excessive duration of the court proceedings could have, especially to enjoy the right to respect family life.

The disputed procedure for deprivation of parental rights has begun 22. May 2019. years and is still underway. Therefore, it has been approximately six years so far. This procedure had a strong impact on applicants and M., and any uncertainty in this regard had a serious impact on the applicants. Moreover, the proceedings also refer to temporary measures regarding their contact with minor M. in question, the applicants acted quickly and did not cause any delays.

According to the court's assessment in this case, there is no indication that the length of the proceedings was the result of effort to re-establish personal contact, ie. Relations between the applicants and M., their son. The applicants repeatedly requested the courts to regulate their contact with M. and to provide a more regular contact. Domestic courts and other bodies were mostly passive with this regard.

Given these circumstances, the Court assessed that it wasLack of quick response In this regard, he negatively influenced the relationship between the applicants and M., which seems to be completely alienated from his parents - applicants. This had a negative impact on the family life of the applicants andrepresents a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)

The applicants did not apply to fairly satisfied under Article 41 of the Convention, so that the Court has not appointed any money amount in the name of intangible damage or the cost of the procedure.