SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3759/08 by Zorica PEÅ I Ć against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:

András Sajó , President, Dragoljub Popović , Kristina Pardalos , judges and Françoise Elens-Passos , D eputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 January 2008,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The application was lodged by Ms Zorica Peš i ć , a Serbian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Smederevo . Sh e was represented before the Court by Ms S. Pe ć anac , a lawyer practising in Smederevo . The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 12 February 20 01 the applicant filed a divorce claim with the Municipal Court , at the same time asking for custody over her son L.P. to be awarded to the child ’ s father, V.P.

On 22 August 2001 the Municipal Court ( Opštinski sud ) in Smederevo : ( i ) dissolved the applicant ’ s marriage; (ii) granted custody of L.P. to V.P. ; (iii) ordered the applicant to pay monthly child maintenance; and (iv) ruled that the applicant could spend every other weekend , State or religious holiday with L.P., as well as his every other birthday.

On 10 December 2001 this judgment became final.

O n 11 November 2001 the applicant filed an enforcement request with the Municipal Court , as she had been refused access to L.P .

On 2 June 2006 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order whereby V.P. was given three additional days to comply with the applicant ’ s access rights or be fined.

On 1 August 2007, 27 December 2007 and 3 March 2008, respectively, the applicant requested that the said fine be imposed, apparently to no avail.

T he applicant has not had any regular and meaningful contact with L.P. since 2001 .

THE LAW

Under various provision of the Convention the applicant, in substance, complained about the non-enforcement of the final access order of 22 August 2001, as well as the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this respect.

By letter dated 30 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“ I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant ’ s rights under Article 6 paragraph 1, [Article] 8 and Article 13 of the Convention and unilaterally offers to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 3,600 ex gratia in respect of the application registered under no. 3759/08 before the European Court for Human Rights

This sum, which covers any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, shall be paid in dinar counter-value, free of any taxes that may be applicable and to an account [specified] by the applicant. The sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the [ decision ] by the Court. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application. ”

In a letter of 14 August 2010 the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that she accepted the Government ’ s declaration .

The Court takes note of the settlement between the parties . It is satisfied that the declaration upon which the settlement is based respect s human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and it finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). However, as the proceedings are still pending domestically, the Government should ensure that they are concluded rapidly, whilst safeguarding the proper administration of justice.

In view of the above it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list , in accordance with Articles 37 § 1 (b) and 39 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

D ecides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Françoise Elens-Passos András Sajó Deputy Registrar President