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 notes at the outset that the applicant’s daughter’s mother has had sole custody of her. Having regard to the fact that the present case concerns proceedings in which contact arrangements were determined and to its case-law on the subject matter, the Court concludes that the applicant has no standing to act on his daughter’s behalf (see Eberhard and M., cited above, §§ 89-90; Sahin v. Germany (dec.), no. 30943/96, 12 December 2000, and Petersen v. Germany (dec.), no. 31178/96, 6 December 2001).

The Court further notes that the applicant’s complaint in respect of which he invoked provisions of the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights is in substance similar to the complaint he lodged under Article 8 of the Convention and should be dealt with under the latter provision. In this connection, the Court reiterates that in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention the Court’s role is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto. The Court therefore has no power to supervise the compliance with the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights.

With regard to the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 concerning the courts’ refusal to issue an interim decision which would have provisionally regulated holiday contact arrangements, the Court notes that the applicant has not availed himself of a constitutional appeal in respect of the Koper Higher Court’s decision of 9 November 2005, nor has he provided any arguments as to way a constitutional appeal would have been ineffective in his case. In any event, the Court notes that the domestic authorities were certainly better placed to assess what was in the best interests of the applicant’s daughter. The domestic court’s decisions, which were well-reasoned, do not appear unreasonable and this part of the application should therefore be declared inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The Court notes that while the proceedings in question concerned weekly and holiday contact arrangements, the applicant’s complaint under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention was restricted to the courts’ processing of his request for holiday contact arrangements. It recalls that Article 6 § 1 enshrines a right to have one’s civil rights determined in a reasonable time and that Article 8 includes a positive obligation on the States to take steps to reunite parents with their children and an obligation on national authorities to facilitate such reunions (Eberhard and M., cited above, § 127).

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.

Finally, the applicant also complained that Article 13 of the Convention was breached in his case. The Court finds, in the light of the above considerations, that the applicant has no arguable claim under Article 13 taken together with Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, §§ 54-5, Series A no. 131, and Guţu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 40-1, 7 June 2007). Accordingly, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be dismissed 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