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
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
1 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:
