Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

RESIDENCE: Sobota-Gajic v Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : sobota-gajic-v-bosnia-and-herzegovina
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 6, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88219

(European Court of Human Rights; 6 November 2007) The mother had been granted custody of both children following the divorce. The custody decision took 9 months to enforce in relation to the son. On the day after the son moved to the mother's home, the father abducted the child. The mother brought criminal proceedings, which for some reason remained at the preliminary stage until the father died, 2 years later. On the father's death the child lived with the paternal grandmother. The grandmother was eventually convicted of subjecting the child to psychological violence, but following the conviction it took another 10 months before the child was restored to the mother's care.

The authorities had failed to take all reasonable measures to reunite the mother with the child; the separation had lasted over 4 years. The delays had partly been caused by confusion as to who was responsible for enforcement of the various court decisions. There had been a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from