003-7333081-10009321

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 156 (2022)   12.05.2022   Judgments and decisions of 12 May 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of three Chamber   judgments1 and two decisions2:   the three judgments are summarised below;   the two decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Dragan Kovačević v. Croatia (application no. 49281/15)   The applicant, Dragan Kovačević, is a Croatian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Slatina   (Croatia).   The case concerns the costs of proceedings before the Constitutional Court in 2014-15 in which the   applicant challenged the civil courts’ decisions to deprive him of his legal capacity. The Constitutional   Court quashed those decisions but dismissed his claim for reimbursement of his costs. The ruling on   costs was based on a provision of domestic law providing that each participant in proceedings before   the Constitutional Court has to bear their own costs unless the court decides otherwise.   The applicant complains that even though the Constitutional Court allowed his constitutional   complaint, it did not award him the costs of legal representation, alleging that this breached his right   of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and his right to   peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   Pecuniary damage: 815 euros (EUR)   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000   Costs and expenses: EUR 2,500   X v. the Czech Republic (no. 64886/19)   The applicant, Ms X, is a Czech national who was born in 1980. She is currently living in the United   States of America.   The case essentially concerns the enforcement by the Czech courts of their decision to return the   applicant’s daughter to the USA under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International   Child Abduction.   The applicant’s husband had initiated the proceedings under the Hague Convention because she had   not returned with him to the USA with their daughter after travelling to the Czech Republic in June   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s   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. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   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.   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   2016. He argued that the visit had only been temporary, while the applicant maintained that they   had been intending to settle in the Czech Republic, given their daughter’s health problems and   difficulties in obtaining medical insurance in the USA. The father and daughter eventually returned   to the USA in 2019, followed shortly after by the applicant.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicant   complains about the enforcement of the decision to return her daughter to the USA. She argues in   particular that it had taken the father more than 11 months to request the child’s return, and that   the courts had adopted a simplistic approach according to which every application lodged within the   one-year time-limit was granted, without taking into account the child’s best interests.   No violation of Article 8   Tabouret v. France (no. 43078/15)*   The applicant, Dominique Tabouret, is a French national who was born in 1956 and lives in La   Bruffière. In 1992 Ms Tabouret entered into an agreement with a court bailiff to take over his office,   which at the time employed four people. Criminal proceedings were brought against the bailiff for   fraud and breach of trust.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to be heard within a reasonable time), the applicant alleges that the   length of the proceedings, and in particular the length of time taken to produce the expert report   needed to rule on the civil action, was excessive and made it impossible to recover the sums her   predecessor had been ordered to pay, as he had been declared bankrupt.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 290,000 for all heads of damage   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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   2