Communicated on 6 October 2020 Published on 26 October 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 19938/20 Q and R against Slovenia lodged on 28 April 2020

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns domestic courts decisions on contact between the applicants and their grandchildren, whose mother was killed by their father on 27 December 2015, and the length of the proceedings concerning the foster care licence requested by Q (for the relevant background of the case see Q v. Slovenia ( dec. ) [Committee], no. 14401/17, 10 April 2018).

On 15 January 2016 applicant Q (the grandmother) applied for a foster care licence. On 12 September 2019 the Constitutional Court quashed the judgment delivered in the proceedings and remitted the case to the Administrative Court for fresh consideration. At the time the applicants lodged their application with the Court, the foster care licence proceedings were pending before the Administrative Court.

The applicants maintained contact with their grandchildren after the V. Social Work Centre, on 30 March 2016, removed them from the applicants ’ care and placed them in foster care with a chosen family. Pursuant to the C. District Court ’ s decision of 15 June 2017, the applicants were entitled to spend two hours with their grandchildren every other week. The contact took place on the premises of the crisis centre under the supervision of their expert. On 13 October 2017 the applicants lodged a new proposal for extended contact which would take place in their home without supervision. On 30 October 2018 the C. District Court, relying largely on the opinion of a court-appointed expert in child psychiatry, M.T., decided that the contact should take place once a month for three hours on the premises of the crisis centre under the supervision of their expert. The Higher Court dismissed the appeal. On 12 March 2020 the Constitutional Court decided not to accept the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint for consideration.

Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants made the following complaints with respect to the contact proceedings:

( i ) They complain about the court ’ s refusal to examine expert D.T., who gave a favourable opinion to unsupervised contacts in the foster care licence proceedings.

(ii) They complain about the court ’ s failure to resolve the contradictory opinions of experts D.T. and M.T.

(iii) They allege that the grandchildren were not sufficiently included in the proceedings and were not heard by the court.

(iv) They further allege that the courts failed to appoint a guardian ( kolizijski skrbnik ) to represent the grandchildren ’ s interests but instead allowed V. Social Work Centre to act as their representative despite the apparent conflict of interest.

In addition, applicant Q complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning the foster care licence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the domestic courts ’ decisions regarding contact between the applicants and their grandchildren, in particular in view of the fact that the domestic courts did not: (i) appoint a guardian for special cases ( kolizijski skrbnik ) to represent the grandchildren ’ s interest in the proceedings; (ii) hear the grandchildren; and (iii) examine court-appointed expert D.T., (see Kutzner v. Germany , no. 46544/99, §§ 56-57, ECHR 2002 ‑ I; Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, §§ 68 and 73-77, ECHR 2003 ‑ VIII; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, §§ 48-53, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII; and Petrov and X v. Russia , no. 23608/16 , § 112, 23 October 2018)?

2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Has applicant Q exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as regards her complaint of the excessively long proceedings concerning her application for a foster care licence?

4. If so, is the length of the proceedings concerning the foster care licence in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are further requested to inform the Court on the status of the proceedings concerning Q ’ s application for a foster care licence.