I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in L.B. v. SLOVAKIA.

Judgment

FIRST SECTION
CASE OF L.B. v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 5541/22)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 September 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of L.B. v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gilberto Felici, President, Alena Poláčková, Raffaele Sabato, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 5541/22) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 January 2022 by a Slovak national, L.B. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Nové Mesto nad Váhom and was represented by Mr S. Cibulka, a lawyer practising in Trenčín;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Slovak Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Miroslava Bálintová, from the Ministry of Justice;
the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;
the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant’s rights to contact with his minor son, the enforcement of interim orders, and the length of the proceedings. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. 2. On 1 February 2019 the mother of the applicant’s son initiated proceedings in the Nové Mesto nad Váhom District Court seeking arrangements for the exercise of parental rights and obligations in respect of their child (“the custody proceedings”). 3. It appears that, on the basis of interim orders made by the court in March and July 2019, the applicant was able to have regular contact with his son (born in 2013) and that until the end of September 2019 that contact went smoothly. 4. On 6 March 2020 the court made an interim order for regular contact between the applicant and his son for the period from March to June 2020 at the premises of the Centre for children and family (“the Centre”) in Nové Mesto nad Váhom. However, as the Centre was closed until the end of May 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the first meeting did not take place until 4 June 2020. 5. On 3 June 2020 the Trenčín Regional Court varied the order so that contact was to take place on Thursdays from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the premises of the Centre. 6. On 6 October 2020 the District Court, having established on 25 August 2020 that the scheduled contact had not taken place, ordered enforcement of the interim order of 6 March 2020. 7. On 20 October 2020 the Constitutional Court (I. ÚS 471/2020) dismissed as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s constitutional complaint challenging the protracted conduct of the District Court. 8. On 12 January 2021 the court ordered the parents, grandparents and child to attend regular social counselling sessions at the Centre and ordered the Centre to inform the court of each session. 9. The contact between the applicant and his son scheduled for June, July and August 2021 did not take place. In its final report of 31 August 2021, the Centre observed that it had not been possible to re-establish contact between the applicant and his son. It recommended a further variation of the order so that it could work with the child on an individual basis, without the presence of his mother. 10. On 22 August 2021 the District Court discontinued the enforcement of the interim order of 6 March 2020 because it had become unenforceable as a result of the interim order of 12 January 2021. 11. On 22 September 2021 the court invited the mother of the child to comply with the interim order of 12 January 2021 voluntarily. 12. At a hearing of 26 October 2021, the District Court again ordered the parents, grandparents and child to attend regular social counselling sessions at the Centre and ordered the Centre to inform it of each session; the child should have attended those sessions without the presence of his mother. 13. On 11 November 2021 the Constitutional Court (II. ÚS 543/2021) declared inadmissible the applicant’s second constitutional complaint in which he complained, in particular, that his right to family life was violated by the fact that he was prevented from having contact with his minor son as a result of the court’s inaction. 14. The Centre reported to the District Court that the contact scheduled for December 2021 and January and February 2022 had not taken place: the mother and child had failed to attend. 15. In a judgment of 10 February 2022, the District Court ordered that the child should reside with the mother and ordered the applicant to pay monthly maintenance of fifty euros (EUR). The court also ordered both parents and the child to undergo three months of psychological counselling at the Centre; on completion of the therapy, the applicant would be allowed to have contact with the child every other weekend from 3.30 p.m. on Friday to 6 p.m. on Sunday. It ordered the mother to prepare the child and take him to the meeting place at the time fixed. 16. On 16 February 2022 the District Court ordered the child’s mother, on penalty of a fine if she did not, to ensure that the child attended regular social counselling sessions at the Centre at a specified time, under the interim order of 26 October 2021 (see paragraph 11 above). On 13 April 2022 the court fined the child’s mother EUR 100 for having failed to comply with the interim order. 17. On 24 March 2022 the applicant, having been charged in March 2019, was found guilty of the offence of dangerous stalking of the child’s mother and obstructing the execution of a court order and was given a six-month suspended sentence. 18. The Centre reported that the mother had missed most of the social counselling sessions between June and October 2022 and that the sporadic meetings she had attended with the child had been short and difficult. 19. On 2 August 2022 the child’s mother was charged with obstructing the execution of a decision by a public authority. 20. On 20 October 2022 the Regional Court upheld the interim order issued by the District Court on 26 October 2021 (see paragraph 12 above). 21. On 9 November 2022 the Regional Court upheld the District Court judgment as regards the obligation of the parents and the child to undergo professional social counselling. With regard to the applicant’s contact rights, it ruled that after completing the course of therapy the applicant would be entitled to contact with his son every second Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. for the first two months and then every second week from 9 a.m. on Saturday to 5 p.m. on Sunday. 22. On 5 February 2023 the child’s mother appealed on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment, which apparently remains undecided before the Supreme Court. 23. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that, as a result of the slow and inefficient decision-making of the courts, he had been unsuccessful in his efforts to obtain regular contact with his minor son. He also complained that the custody proceedings had been in breach of the reasonable-time requirement set out in Article 6 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
24. The Court finds that the applicant’s complaints fall to be examined only under Article 8 of the Convention (see Rinau v. Lithuania, no. 10926/09, § 152, 14 January 2020, with further references). It further finds that they are not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds and must, therefore, be declared admissible. 25. The Government denied that there had been any violation of the applicant’s rights. 26. The Court reiterates that, while Article 8 of the Convention contains no explicit procedural requirements, where there is a decision which interferes with Article 8 rights the process must be fair and must ensure due respect for the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). The appropriate principles of proceedings concerning a parent’s relationship with his or her child have been summarised in, inter alia, T.C. v. Italy (no. 54032/18, §§ 57‐58, 19 May 2022). 27. The Court has already established that ineffective, and, in particular, delayed conduct of child custody and contact proceedings may give rise to a breach of the positive obligations under Article 8 (see, for example, S.I. v. Slovenia, no. 45082/05, § 69, 13 October 2011). In cases concerning a person’s relationship with his or her child, it is the duty of the judicial authorities to exercise exceptional diligence in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter. This duty, which is decisive in assessing whether a case has been heard within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, also forms part of the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 (see, for example, Strömblad v. Sweden, no. 3684/07, § 80, 5 April 2012). 28. Having examined the parties’ submissions, the Court is unable to accept that the decision-making process in the present case ensured due respect for the applicant’s interests as guaranteed by Article 8. In this connection, the Court acknowledges that, in the course of the custody proceedings, which had been on foot for four years when the child’s mother lodged an appeal on points of law (see paragraph 22 above), a number of interim orders were made to regulate the applicant’s contact rights with his minor son and to organise appropriate professional psychological assistance. 29. The Court finds, however, that the domestic courts did not pay sufficient attention to whether those interim orders were actually complied with by the persons concerned. In this regard, the Court refers to the regular reports of the Centre where the therapeutic sessions and contact between the applicant and his minor son took place. Although those reports showed that most of the sessions and meetings did not take place because of the conduct of the child’s mother, the District Court failed to react promptly and did not take the steps necessary to ensure the restoration of a meaningful relationship between the applicant and his child. During the four years of the custody proceedings, the court only once ordered the execution of an interim order but subsequently discontinued it (see paragraphs 6 and 10 above), twice ordered the child’s mother to comply with the interim orders and once, in 2022, imposed a fine on her for non‐compliance with an interim order (see paragraphs 11 and 16 above) without, however, these procedural measures having completely remedied or significantly improved the situation. 30. The Court notes that the domestic authorities’ task was made difficult by the strained relationships between the parents. However, a lack of cooperation between separated parents is not a circumstance which can by itself exempt the authorities from their obligations under Article 8 (see Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, § 67, 23 June 2005). For more than two years, the domestic authorities failed to take sufficiently effective action in response to the child’s mother’s obstructive behaviour and failed to reconcile the conflicting interests of the parties concerned. Although she was fined in April 2022 for failing to comply with the interim order (see paragraph 16 above) and subsequently, in August 2022, charged with the obstruction of the execution of an official decision (see paragraph 19 above), such measures on the part of the authorities, in the absence of any previous effective steps to ensure the applicant’s contact with his son, cannot be seen as an adequate response to the urgency of the situation and, moreover, do not appear to have had any real effect or to have been followed up with further coercive measures. 31. Regard being had to the above, the Court concludes that the Slovak authorities failed to take all necessary steps that could reasonably be expected in the given circumstances to ensure effective enjoyment by the applicant of his parental rights or to otherwise facilitate his contact with his son. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
32. The applicant claimed 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government considered this amount overstated. 33. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non‐pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 34. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,213.91 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court supported by an itemised list of legal services and their financial evaluation. The Government argued that the applicant had not submitted any document confirming that he had actually paid this amount and requested to award the reimbursement of costs and expenses only insofar as it had been shown that they had been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable in quantum. 35. In the instant case, the Court observes that the applicant did not substantiate his claim for the costs of legal services with any relevant supporting documents establishing that he was under an obligation to pay them or that he had actually paid. Accordingly, the Court does not award any sum on this account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Gilberto Felici Deputy Registrar President

FIRST SECTION
CASE OF L.B. v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 5541/22)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 September 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of L.B. v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gilberto Felici, President, Alena Poláčková, Raffaele Sabato, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 5541/22) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 January 2022 by a Slovak national, L.B. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Nové Mesto nad Váhom and was represented by Mr S. Cibulka, a lawyer practising in Trenčín;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Slovak Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Miroslava Bálintová, from the Ministry of Justice;
the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;
the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant’s rights to contact with his minor son, the enforcement of interim orders, and the length of the proceedings. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. 2. On 1 February 2019 the mother of the applicant’s son initiated proceedings in the Nové Mesto nad Váhom District Court seeking arrangements for the exercise of parental rights and obligations in respect of their child (“the custody proceedings”). 3. It appears that, on the basis of interim orders made by the court in March and July 2019, the applicant was able to have regular contact with his son (born in 2013) and that until the end of September 2019 that contact went smoothly. 4. On 6 March 2020 the court made an interim order for regular contact between the applicant and his son for the period from March to June 2020 at the premises of the Centre for children and family (“the Centre”) in Nové Mesto nad Váhom. However, as the Centre was closed until the end of May 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the first meeting did not take place until 4 June 2020. 5. On 3 June 2020 the Trenčín Regional Court varied the order so that contact was to take place on Thursdays from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the premises of the Centre. 6. On 6 October 2020 the District Court, having established on 25 August 2020 that the scheduled contact had not taken place, ordered enforcement of the interim order of 6 March 2020. 7. On 20 October 2020 the Constitutional Court (I. ÚS 471/2020) dismissed as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s constitutional complaint challenging the protracted conduct of the District Court. 8. On 12 January 2021 the court ordered the parents, grandparents and child to attend regular social counselling sessions at the Centre and ordered the Centre to inform the court of each session. 9. The contact between the applicant and his son scheduled for June, July and August 2021 did not take place. In its final report of 31 August 2021, the Centre observed that it had not been possible to re-establish contact between the applicant and his son. It recommended a further variation of the order so that it could work with the child on an individual basis, without the presence of his mother. 10. On 22 August 2021 the District Court discontinued the enforcement of the interim order of 6 March 2020 because it had become unenforceable as a result of the interim order of 12 January 2021. 11. On 22 September 2021 the court invited the mother of the child to comply with the interim order of 12 January 2021 voluntarily. 12. At a hearing of 26 October 2021, the District Court again ordered the parents, grandparents and child to attend regular social counselling sessions at the Centre and ordered the Centre to inform it of each session; the child should have attended those sessions without the presence of his mother. 13. On 11 November 2021 the Constitutional Court (II. ÚS 543/2021) declared inadmissible the applicant’s second constitutional complaint in which he complained, in particular, that his right to family life was violated by the fact that he was prevented from having contact with his minor son as a result of the court’s inaction. 14. The Centre reported to the District Court that the contact scheduled for December 2021 and January and February 2022 had not taken place: the mother and child had failed to attend. 15. In a judgment of 10 February 2022, the District Court ordered that the child should reside with the mother and ordered the applicant to pay monthly maintenance of fifty euros (EUR). The court also ordered both parents and the child to undergo three months of psychological counselling at the Centre; on completion of the therapy, the applicant would be allowed to have contact with the child every other weekend from 3.30 p.m. on Friday to 6 p.m. on Sunday. It ordered the mother to prepare the child and take him to the meeting place at the time fixed. 16. On 16 February 2022 the District Court ordered the child’s mother, on penalty of a fine if she did not, to ensure that the child attended regular social counselling sessions at the Centre at a specified time, under the interim order of 26 October 2021 (see paragraph 11 above). On 13 April 2022 the court fined the child’s mother EUR 100 for having failed to comply with the interim order. 17. On 24 March 2022 the applicant, having been charged in March 2019, was found guilty of the offence of dangerous stalking of the child’s mother and obstructing the execution of a court order and was given a six-month suspended sentence. 18. The Centre reported that the mother had missed most of the social counselling sessions between June and October 2022 and that the sporadic meetings she had attended with the child had been short and difficult. 19. On 2 August 2022 the child’s mother was charged with obstructing the execution of a decision by a public authority. 20. On 20 October 2022 the Regional Court upheld the interim order issued by the District Court on 26 October 2021 (see paragraph 12 above). 21. On 9 November 2022 the Regional Court upheld the District Court judgment as regards the obligation of the parents and the child to undergo professional social counselling. With regard to the applicant’s contact rights, it ruled that after completing the course of therapy the applicant would be entitled to contact with his son every second Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. for the first two months and then every second week from 9 a.m. on Saturday to 5 p.m. on Sunday. 22. On 5 February 2023 the child’s mother appealed on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment, which apparently remains undecided before the Supreme Court. 23. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that, as a result of the slow and inefficient decision-making of the courts, he had been unsuccessful in his efforts to obtain regular contact with his minor son. He also complained that the custody proceedings had been in breach of the reasonable-time requirement set out in Article 6 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
24. The Court finds that the applicant’s complaints fall to be examined only under Article 8 of the Convention (see Rinau v. Lithuania, no. 10926/09, § 152, 14 January 2020, with further references). It further finds that they are not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds and must, therefore, be declared admissible. 25. The Government denied that there had been any violation of the applicant’s rights. 26. The Court reiterates that, while Article 8 of the Convention contains no explicit procedural requirements, where there is a decision which interferes with Article 8 rights the process must be fair and must ensure due respect for the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). The appropriate principles of proceedings concerning a parent’s relationship with his or her child have been summarised in, inter alia, T.C. v. Italy (no. 54032/18, §§ 57‐58, 19 May 2022). 27. The Court has already established that ineffective, and, in particular, delayed conduct of child custody and contact proceedings may give rise to a breach of the positive obligations under Article 8 (see, for example, S.I. v. Slovenia, no. 45082/05, § 69, 13 October 2011). In cases concerning a person’s relationship with his or her child, it is the duty of the judicial authorities to exercise exceptional diligence in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter. This duty, which is decisive in assessing whether a case has been heard within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, also forms part of the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 (see, for example, Strömblad v. Sweden, no. 3684/07, § 80, 5 April 2012). 28. Having examined the parties’ submissions, the Court is unable to accept that the decision-making process in the present case ensured due respect for the applicant’s interests as guaranteed by Article 8. In this connection, the Court acknowledges that, in the course of the custody proceedings, which had been on foot for four years when the child’s mother lodged an appeal on points of law (see paragraph 22 above), a number of interim orders were made to regulate the applicant’s contact rights with his minor son and to organise appropriate professional psychological assistance. 29. The Court finds, however, that the domestic courts did not pay sufficient attention to whether those interim orders were actually complied with by the persons concerned. In this regard, the Court refers to the regular reports of the Centre where the therapeutic sessions and contact between the applicant and his minor son took place. Although those reports showed that most of the sessions and meetings did not take place because of the conduct of the child’s mother, the District Court failed to react promptly and did not take the steps necessary to ensure the restoration of a meaningful relationship between the applicant and his child. During the four years of the custody proceedings, the court only once ordered the execution of an interim order but subsequently discontinued it (see paragraphs 6 and 10 above), twice ordered the child’s mother to comply with the interim orders and once, in 2022, imposed a fine on her for non‐compliance with an interim order (see paragraphs 11 and 16 above) without, however, these procedural measures having completely remedied or significantly improved the situation. 30. The Court notes that the domestic authorities’ task was made difficult by the strained relationships between the parents. However, a lack of cooperation between separated parents is not a circumstance which can by itself exempt the authorities from their obligations under Article 8 (see Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, § 67, 23 June 2005). For more than two years, the domestic authorities failed to take sufficiently effective action in response to the child’s mother’s obstructive behaviour and failed to reconcile the conflicting interests of the parties concerned. Although she was fined in April 2022 for failing to comply with the interim order (see paragraph 16 above) and subsequently, in August 2022, charged with the obstruction of the execution of an official decision (see paragraph 19 above), such measures on the part of the authorities, in the absence of any previous effective steps to ensure the applicant’s contact with his son, cannot be seen as an adequate response to the urgency of the situation and, moreover, do not appear to have had any real effect or to have been followed up with further coercive measures. 31. Regard being had to the above, the Court concludes that the Slovak authorities failed to take all necessary steps that could reasonably be expected in the given circumstances to ensure effective enjoyment by the applicant of his parental rights or to otherwise facilitate his contact with his son. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
32. The applicant claimed 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government considered this amount overstated. 33. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non‐pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 34. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,213.91 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court supported by an itemised list of legal services and their financial evaluation. The Government argued that the applicant had not submitted any document confirming that he had actually paid this amount and requested to award the reimbursement of costs and expenses only insofar as it had been shown that they had been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable in quantum. 35. In the instant case, the Court observes that the applicant did not substantiate his claim for the costs of legal services with any relevant supporting documents establishing that he was under an obligation to pay them or that he had actually paid. Accordingly, the Court does not award any sum on this account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Gilberto Felici Deputy Registrar President