003-3504642-3951227

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 322   12.04.2011   Croatia must ensure contact between divorced father and his   daughter at a time compatible with his work schedule and on   suitable premises   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Gluhaković v. Croatia (application   no. 21188/09), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   A violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   European Convention on Human Rights   The case concerned Mr Gluhaković’s complaint that the Croatian authorities have not   ensured adequate contact with his daughter. This is the first time that the Court has   issued such directions, under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), in   relation to the right to respect for family life.   Principal facts   The applicant, Stjepan Gluhaković, is a Croatian national who was born in 1960 and lives   in Rijeka (Croatia).   In July 1999 Mr Gluhaković’s wife left him; she was pregnant at the time. She gave birth   in December 1999 to their daughter.   In a number of proceedings, before the local Municipal Court and Social Welfare Centre   as well as before the Constitutional Court, Mr Gluhaković was granted the right to   contact with his daughter, who continued to live with her mother.   During these proceedings, Mr Gluhaković repeatedly requested that the meetings with   his daughter take place every fourth or eighth day, as he worked in Vicenza, Italy, and   his work schedule was such that he had every fourth day off. It was therefore very   difficult for him to travel to Rijeka on a fixed day of the week; he had to drive at night   and was obliged to ask colleagues to replace him, causing him significant difficulties.   The national courts made no comment concerning his work schedule and repeatedly   ordered that he see his daughter on a fixed day. Initially, until October 2008, meetings   were ordered to take place every Tuesday for two hours, then from November 2008,   once per week, and, from November 2009, every Thursday.   It was first ordered that the meetings were to take place at the Rijeka Counselling   Centre and later, from November 2008, at the Social Welfare Centre. They had to be   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution     supervised by a third person, as recommended by a psychiatrist’s report which   diagnosed Mr Gluhaković with paranoid psychosis.   In March and November 2005 the Counselling Centre reported to the national courts that   their premises were not suitable for the meetings between Mr Gluhaković and his   daughter as they had to see one another in the Centre’s kitchen or in offices of its   employees. On that account, in July 2007 the Counselling Centre informed the applicant   that he could no longer meet with his daughter on their premises.   In January 2009 the Social Welfare Centre also submitted to the courts that they had no   suitable premises as, owing to shortage of space, the only place where the applicant and   his daughter could meet would be in a corridor.   Most recently, in March 2010 the courts ordered that contact could take place once per   week for three hours at a time when the applicant’s work schedule allowed and at a   place to be arranged between the parties themselves.   However, that judgment has not been enforced as his ex-wife refuses to let him meet his   daughter in his flat and no other suitable solution has been found.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) of the   Convention, Mr Gluhaković complained that the Croatian authorities have not ensured   regular contact with his daughter on adequate premises since 2000 and that he has not   seen his daughter at all since July 2007.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 April 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Anatoly Kovler (Russia), President,   Nina Vajić (Croatia),   Christos Rozakis (Greece),   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),   Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)   Unlike the national courts, the Court accepted that travelling from Vicenza to Rijeka on a   fixed day created difficulties for Mr Gluhaković’s right of contact with his daughter. The   courts gave no explanation why it had not been possible to accommodate his alternative   proposals for contact. Indeed, his arguments had been constantly ignored at every   judicial level.   Nor did the courts take into account any objections as to the place of the meetings. They   ignored both the Counselling Centre’s reports as well as that of the Social Welfare   Centre’s. The courts even ordered the meetings to take place at the Social Welfare   Centre without assessing its suitability. This resulted in Mr Gluhaković first having to go   to significant lengths to organise his replacement at work and meet his daughter in such   places as a kitchen and offices of the Counselling Centre and then not see her at all as   the only place in the Welfare Centre would have been in a corridor.   Bearing in mind that Mr Gluhaković has had no contact with his daughter since July   2007, the Court held that the Croatian authorities had failed to ensure his right to   effective contact with his daughter, in violation of Article 8.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that Croatia was to pay Mr Gluhaković 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of   non pecuniary damage.   Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments),   Exceptionally, and given the urgent need to put an end to the violation of   Mr Gluhaković’s right to respect for his family life, the Court also decided to issue the   direction that Croatia had to ensure effective contact between the applicant and his   daughter at a time compatible with his work schedule and on suitable premises.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3