BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Damjan CAKIC-IVKOVIC v Serbia - 33623/07 [2009] ECHR 1500 (15 September 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1500.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1500 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
33623/07
by Damjan CAKIĆ-IVKOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and
Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2005,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Damjan Cakić-Ivković, is a child of Serbian nationality who was born in 2003 and currently lives in Belgrade. He was represented before the Court by Ms Ana Cakić-Ivković, his mother and legal guardian. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 February 2006 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Vlasotince ordered B.I., the applicant’s biological father, to pay to the applicant, as of 1 June 2005, monthly child maintenance equivalent to 30% of the average salary in Serbia, plus the already accrued maintenance within a period of fifteen days.
By 15 June 2006 this judgment had become final.
By 22 April 2008 B.I. paid all maintenance due until February 2008.
COMPLAINT
No specific provision of the Convention was invoked by the applicant. In substance, however, a complaint was made about the non-enforcement of the final maintenance order issued in the applicant’s favour.
THE LAW
On 13 May 2008 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government.
On 5 June 2008 the Court received the Government’s observations.
On 27 June 2008 the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s guardian, who was requested to submit in reply any comments of her own together with any claims for just satisfaction by 25 July 2008.
The letter of 27 June 2008, having been sent to an incorrect address, was not received by the applicant’s guardian. Thus, on 2 September 2008, the Government’s observations were re-sent, and the applicant’s guardian was requested to send her reply by 14 October 2008.
Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 2 April 2009, the Court reminded the applicant’s guardian that the observations had not been submitted, granted her proprio motu an extension of the time-limit, and asked her to submit any comments to the Government’s observations by 28 May 2009. She was also warned, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, that the Court might strike a case out of its list of cases where it concluded that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application. This letter was received by a member of the applicant’s household on 29 April 2009, but again there was no response.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant’s guardian may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Additionally, the Court notes that the situation regarding the payment of the maintenance awarded has significantly improved, at least by April 2008. Thus, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the continued examination of the case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President