Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE a book called “ Kitchen of Litigation ” ( Tiesāšanās kā ķēķis ) was published , which contained transcripts of allegedly authentic telephone conversations between the lawyers of a wellknown law office in GPE and judges working in various courts , including the ORG of ORG . The judiciary ’s allegedly unlawful and unethical behaviour provoked considerable public debate and attracted wide media coverage . ORG and ORG launched an inquiry ( pārbaude ) .

On DATE ORG established a working group consisting of CARDINAL judges . The working group was tasked with carrying out an assessment of whether “ the judges of ORG who were purportedly involved in the telephone tapping scandal , which raises doubts about the independence of the judiciary and the honesty of judges ” had violated LAW . On DATE the working group received transcripts of the alleged telephone conversations from ORG .

On DATE , during the annual conference of judges , the chairman of ORG made a speech about the effects of the book and the public debate which followed . He stated :

“ DATE have passed since information emerged about alleged telephone conversations between judges and a particular lawyer . That event further confirmed the conviction of at least some people in society that doubts about the impartiality and the independence of courts , and therefore the lawfulness of their judgments , are justified .

Society sees the information that was published as credible , irrespective of whether it was obtained lawfully or unlawfully and no matter what the result of the investigation carried out by ORG will be , and it undermines trust in the judiciary . ...

... I think that the information about the alleged conversations between judges and the lawyer [ ... ] should be treated as a signal or a call to look at the problems in the judiciary in a wider context ...

... In relation to this particular situation , I think it was caused by the attitude to the rule of law and the code of ethics which regulate judges’ behaviour . The superficial , irresponsible and perhaps even the unlawful behaviour of certain judges has fundamentally affected trust in the judiciary ...

Therefore [ we ] should also talk about the responsibility of judges , [ we ] should be conscious of the fact that a lack of self - criticism and an inability to apply ethical standards properly pose a threat to the independence of the judiciary .... ”

On an unknown date the inquiry carried out by ORG concluded that the alleged telephone conversations had taken place DATE . As there were no audio records of the conversations , the authenticity of the content of the transcripts could not be established . In the course of the inquiry ORG questioned several judges mentioned in the book .

With regard to Judge O.D.J. , a judge of the ORG of ORG , ORG observed that the book had referred to a brief telephone conversation of DATE in which the lawyer ORG had arranged a meeting in the Judge O.D.J. ’s office . The impugned conversation had not referred to any specific civil case so ORG concluded that there were insufficient grounds to investigate Judge O.D.J. ’s activities .

On DATE the working group established by ORG published a report on their inquiry into alleged ethical wrongdoing by judges . The working group identified that CARDINAL of the QUANTITY judges , whose conduct had been assessed , had violated LAW , but that Judge O.D.J. , whose conversation with the lawyer had been published in the book , had not . It stated :

“ ... [ CARDINAL ] In his submissions [ CARDINAL ] O.D.J. did not deny that he might have had conversations [ with the lawyer ] but that they had only concerned NORP compensation claims , however in those cases [ the lawyer ] had not been representing any of the parties , and therefore the working group concluded that O.D.J. had not violated LAW . ”

In DATE the applicant and another person brought a civil claim against a third party . On DATE the Riga Regional court , as a firstinstance court , dismissed the claim and on DATE ORG , acting as an appellate court , dismissed an appeal by the applicant .

NORP In DATE the ORG of ORG granted leave to the applicant to appeal on points of law . The hearing before the cassation court was held on DATE . The ORG sat as a panel of CARDINAL judges , including O.D.J. The applicant ’s representative raised objections to O.D.J. , arguing that the applicant had reasonable doubts as to his impartiality on the grounds that the judge was under several inquiries at the time for allegedly unethical or unlawful behavior . The applicant also alleged that the defendant ’s representative was a former employee of ORG .

On DATE the other CARDINAL judges , referring to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the objections . They noted that the applicant ’s doubts were based only on an assumption and that the objection did not contain evidence allowing to conclude that the applicant ’s doubts about the impartiality of Judge O.D.J. in the particular case were reasonable in the terms of the above provision . On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the appellate court ’s judgment on the merits by which the applicant ’s claim was dismissed and it became final in that part , but referred the case back for reconsideration in part on the implementation of the judgment .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms I. M. Ciontu , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mrs C. Brumar , of ORG .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment , serving his sentence in various NORP prisons . He was detained in LOC for DATE , from DATE to DATE . On DATE the applicant was released on probation from FAC .

On DATE an antenna of the type C - GUARD CARDINAL was installed in LOC for the protection of telephone communications .

On DATE , while the applicant was serving his sentence in ORG , he lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences ( the “ post - sentencing judge ” ) attached to ORG alleging that the radio frequency electromagnetic radiation ( ORG ) emitted from an antenna in the prison had negatively affected his health . In his complaint the applicant stated that since DATE the entire prison staff had received an extra salary allowance for working in dangerous conditions , namely exposure to electromagnetic fields in their working environment .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the post - sentencing judge dismissed the complaint on all grounds . It was observed that the applicant had never complained of specific effects resulting from electromagnetic radiation , nor had he sought medical treatment . The judge also based his ruling on an expert study commissioned from ORG ( ORG ) in order to analyse the electromagnetic field allegedly surrounding the prison ’s wireless communication base station . The report published on DATE revealed that , although the levels of radiation were higher than those prescribed in the relevant safety guidelines in several areas of the prison , exposure was lower in areas to which the prisoners had access .

The applicant appealed against that decision . He submitted as evidence a DATE report by ORG which revealed that , while radiation levels from the wireless communication device had varied between prison areas , they were nevertheless higher than the regulatory standards in place at that time .

His request to have evidence from the prison ’s doctor and a radiologist heard was refused on the ground that there was no link between his diseases ( hepatitis , and after - effects of healed tuberculosis ) as described in the medical file and the alleged harmful exposure to radiation . On DATE the ORG dismissed his appeal , upholding the decision of the post - sentencing judge for the same reasons .

The applicant also lodged a tort action against ORG on DATE . He claimed the sum of CARDINAL ORG for the harmful effects allegedly caused by the electromagnetic radiation , arguing that the prison staff had been awarded a special allowance for the health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation during TIME . ORG relinquished jurisdiction to ORG , which dismissed the applicant ’s claim on DATE .

The applicant appealed and the appeal proceedings are pending before ORG .

Pursuant to CARDINAL orders issued by the Minister of ORG , no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE , staff in ORG were awarded a special allowance for health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation during TIME .

The relevant safety guidelines are laid down in order no . DATE issued by ORG on the general norms concerning limits on NORP exposure to electromagnetic fields . The reference levels specified in the order range from QUANTITY ( ORG ) to QUANTITY ( GHz ) . The order is based on ORG legislation , namely ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of DATE on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electronic fields ( TIME to CARDINAL GHz ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at FAC are set out in more detail in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) . The parties’ submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .

On DATE a public demonstration entitled the “ DATE of CARDINAL ” was held in central GPE to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC which was supposed to end at TIME The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions , but when the marchers arrived at FAC it transpired that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue , allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting . To control the crowd , a police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers , and there were numerous clashes between the police and protesters . At TIME the police ordered that the meeting finish early and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the protestors from the square .

On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was transferred to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder ( LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .

At the time of the events the applicant was a DATE student at the faculty of culture studies of ORG . On DATE he took part in the demonstration at FAC . According to him , he was beaten up by the police as they were dispersing the demonstration .

At TIME the applicant was admitted to the emergency ward of Sklifosovskiy hospital where he was examined by a trauma doctor and a neurosurgeon . The examination revealed multiple bruises on the applicant ’s chest , spine , shoulders , knees and head .

After the events of CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to live at his usual address and pursue his studies . On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of having participated in acts of mass disorder and of using violence against the police during the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the Basmannyy District Court of GPE ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE . It referred to the gravity of the charges and information about the applicant ’s personality . ORG noted , in particular , that the applicant ’s father was a NORP national living in GPE , and that the applicant might therefore flee to avoid the investigation and trial . It concluded that those circumstances gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant , if he were at liberty , was likely to continue his criminal activity , influence witnesses , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the investigation of the criminal case , which was at an initial stage .

On DATE charges were brought against the applicant under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( use of violence against a public official ) . He was accused , in particular , of having torn a protection helmet off a police officer ’s head .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined an investigator ’s request for an extension of the applicant ’s pretrial detention . The applicant requested that an alternative preventive measure be applied pending trial , such as house arrest or a written undertaking not to leave a specified place . On DATE ORG found that the circumstances that had justified the detention order had not changed and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG authorised a further extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It reiterated the grounds given in the previous extension orders and stated that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were reformulated . It was additionally stated that the applicant had shouted insulting slogans and used metal barriers to obstruct the police ; that CARDINAL times he had thrown stones and pieces of tarmac at police officers and had once punched a policeman ; and that he had also grabbed a police officer ’s uniform and had snatched a protection helmet from his hands .

On DATE Police Officer P. identified the applicant during an identification parade as a participant in the mass disorder and the person who had twice thrown pieces of tarmac at the police and tried to snatch the protection helmet from a policeman ’s hands . He specified that he had not seen whether the applicant had in fact succeeded in snatching the helmet or not .

On DATE the investigator of ORG of GPE refused to open a criminal case into allegations made by the applicant that he had been subjected to illtreatment by the police during his arrest . The investigator considered that the use of force by the police had been justified by the behaviour of the protesters , including the applicant , who had actively resisted their arrest and thrown various objects at the police officers .

On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE , essentially on the same grounds as earlier , noting that the applicant ’s state of health was satisfactory and did not warrant his release . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG authorised a further extension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE . The court noted that even though the applicant and his lawyer had already finished reading the case file , other defendants had not . It reiterated the grounds given in the previous extension orders and stated that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed .

On DATE the applicant ’s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of criminal charges .

On DATE that court granted another extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The decision concerned CARDINAL defendants . Along with the gravity of the charges , the court based its decision on the findings that “ the reasons which initially warranted the detention have not changed ” and that “ no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings ” . ORG upheld that extension order on DATE .

On DATE ORG examined an investigator ’s request for an extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . The applicant presented a personal guarantee from a member of ORG in support of an undertaking by him to appear before the investigating authorities and the courts for the examination of his case . However , ORG did not consider that guarantee and ordered that the applicant and his co - defendants be detained until DATE on the grounds of gravity of the charges and the nature of the offences imputable to them . On DATE ORG upheld that extension order .

From DATE until his conviction the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE . There he was detained in cells no . CARDINAL ( until DATE , then from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , and from CARDINAL DATE ) , no . CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , no . CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , and no . CARDINAL ( until DATE ) .

The cells had the following characteristics :

- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY m. and CARDINAL sleeping places ;

- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY m. and CARDINAL sleeping place ;

- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY CARDINAL sleeping places ;

- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY . CARDINAL sleeping places .

The parties agreed that the number of inmates in the cells had not exceeded the design capacity . They also agreed that the size of the cells and the number of detainees had allowed the applicant QUANTITY of personal space and that the applicant had had an individual sleeping place in every cell .

The parties provided the following accounts of the conditions in the cells . According to the applicant , prison cell no . CARDINAL measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates , including himself . The cell was inadequately lit and ventilated , was excessively hot in DATE and cold in DATE . The windows were too high to give sufficient light for reading or working with documents . A shower was allowed once DATE and the lavatory pan was separated from the living space only by a plastic partition . The bed linen was old , and the beds were small for a man of his height . Outdoor exercise was limited to TIME per day .

According to the Government , all of the cells had sanitary units with wash stands and the necessary furniture . The cells were equipped with ventilation , heating and lighting ; the state of the sanitary facilities had been satisfactory ; the bedding had been changed once DATE ; and the cells had been disinfected and subjected to pest control regularly . The applicant had been able to shower once DATE and entitled to TIME of outdoor exercise per day .

The applicant ’s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back , and the ORG ’s submissions in that regard , were identical to those in the case of GPE ( cited above , § § CARDINAL ) .

As regards the conditions of detention in the holding room of ORG , the applicant submitted that the room had been poorly lit and that access to a toilet had been limited to once TIME . In addition , he had been required to strip naked and to perform sit - ups during the body search conducted in the holding room .

The court proceedings began on DATE in hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG , moving at DATE to hearing room no . CARDINAL . The defendants , including the applicant , were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms . From DATE to DATE the hearings continued in hearing room no . CARDINAL at the Nikulinskiy ORG of GPE . In DATE and DATE they took place in hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG . Those hearing rooms were equipped with metal cages in which CARDINAL defendants ( CARDINAL from DATE ) , including the applicant , sat during the hearings .

For a detailed description of the conditions in those hearing rooms , see GPE ( cited above , § § CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG of GPE began a preliminary hearing in a criminal case against CARDINAL participants in the demonstration at FAC , who were charged with participating in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against police officers . On DATE the same court began the trial on the merits .

On an unspecified date Police Officer T. , the alleged victim of the applicant ’s assault , was examined as a witness . He testified that at some point he had been surrounded by the crowd and subjected to violence . T. stated that the applicant had tried to snatch the protection helmet from his hands . Another officer , PERSON , also questioned as a witness , stated that the applicant had shouted something and thrown a stone or a piece of tarmac at a policeman .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged . It held , in particular , as follows :

“ TIME on DATE ... at FAC ... unidentified persons ... called those present [ at the venue ] to move outside the agreed meeting venue , to defy the lawful orders of the police ... , to use violence ... which led to mass disorder accompanied by the use of violence against public officials in connection with the performance of their duties [ and ] the destruction of property .

On DATE at TIME at the latest [ the defendants ] acquired the criminal intent to participate in mass disorder and to use violence against ... police officers ...

Moreover ... the participants of the acts of mass disorder threw pieces of tarmac , stones , sticks and other objects at the police ... which hit them on various parts of their body , and [ the defendants ] ... [ who ] participated in the acts of mass disorder ... implemented their criminal intent to use violence against public officials ... applied physical force which was not a danger to the life or health of those [ officials ] ...

TIME and TIME [ the applicant ] ... shouted insulting slogans and used metal barriers to block the police ’s movement ... thus preventing the arrest of the participants in the acts of mass disorder ... [ The applicant ] , acting intentionally , CARDINAL times threw stones and pieces of tarmac at police officers in a targeted manner ... and used violence against an unidentified police officer which did not endanger his life or health ... unidentified participants in the acts of mass disorder , acting intentionally , tore a protection helmet off an unidentified police officer ’s head and punched and kicked him several times in the head and body , meanwhile [ the applicant ] ... punched this police officer at least once .

[ The applicant ] ... used violence against Police Officer T. which did not endanger his life or health ...

... unidentified participants of the acts of mass disorder intentionally tore off [ T. ’s ] protection helmet , which [ T. ] continued to hold in his hands , and punched him in the head and body , whereupon [ the applicant ] intentionally grabbed [ T. ’s ] uniform and ... snatched the helmet from his hands .

[ The applicant ] pleaded not guilty and testified that ... he had decided to attend the public gathering on DATE ... When leaving ORG [ the applicant ] saw a lot of police officers equipped with bullet - proof vests , helmets and truncheons , which filled him with indignation . As nothing was happening on the stage , [ the applicant ] decided to return ... when leaving the venue he saw the police officers randomly arresting people while hitting them with truncheons ... [ The applicant ] was hit in the back CARDINAL times with a truncheon . When he saw these violent acts by the police , [ the applicant ] approached the barriers where other protestors were standing and expressed his indignation ... Then ... he tried to leave the venue ... when somebody tore off his shirt . ... At some point [ the applicant ] came across police officer [ T. ] ... who was not wearing any helmet . [ The applicant ] tried to leave , but suddenly police officers ran up to him and started to beat him in the head and body , then they arrested him and ... took him to a police vehicle . [ The applicant ] insisted that he had committed no acts in respect of police officer [ T. ] , had not seen his helmet and had snatched nothing from his hands .

... the court considers the [ defendants’ ] arguments that they were protecting somebody from police officers or happened to be victims of the police ’s use of force as farfetched and aimed at mitigating their responsibility ... ”

The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , calculated on the basis of a DATE prison term under LAW , partly concurrent with a term of DATE under LAW . The applicant ’s pre - trial detention counted towards the prison sentence .

The applicant appealed . He complained , in particular , that he had not used metal barriers to block the police ’s movement and insisted that he had been standing close to those barriers before the protestors had started to be arrested . The applicant also pointed out that the video records proved that he had not taken ORG ’s helmet and had not used violence against him . In his opinion , the first - instance court had not assessed his statements about illtreatment by the police .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .

The applicant was represented by a lawyer , Mr NORP , throughout the criminal proceedings at domestic level . On DATE Mr NORP sent the ORG an introductory letter containing the outline of the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment by the police on DATE and of unjustified pre - trial detention .

On DATE ORG acknowledged receipt of the introductory letter , registered under application no . CARDINAL . The applicant was invited to return the completed application form within DATE of receipt of the ORG ’s letter but no DATE . As no further correspondence had been received from the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE ORG asked him whether he was still being represented by PERSON and reminded him to return the completed application form .

On DATE the ORG received the completed application form , signed by a different lawyer , PERSON . It contained complaints about the conditions of detention in the remand prison , in the courtroom and during transfers to and from the prison , and of unjustified pre - trial detention .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Background to the case

The applicants were born in DATE ( the second applicant ) and DATE ( the first applicant ) respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE the second applicant married Mr GPE

On DATE the second applicant gave birth to the first applicant .

Relations between the spouses deteriorated , and in DATE the second applicant brought a civil action against her husband seeking divorce , custody of , and maintenance for the first applicant . Her husband GPE filed a counterclaim , seeking custody of the first applicant .

In the period DATE and DATE a total of CARDINAL criminal complaints were filed against the second applicant and GPE Most of these complaints were filed against each other directly , but some were filed at the initiative of the police . CARDINAL of those CARDINAL complaints resulted in criminal proceedings being instituted ( CARDINAL against FAC and CARDINAL against both GPE and the second applicant ) , the outcome of which is unknown . The remaining CARDINAL criminal complaints were dismissed , including CARDINAL in which it was alleged that criminal offences of child abuse and domestic violence had been committed against the first applicant .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) : ( a ) granted the second applicant and GPE a divorce ; ( b ) awarded GPE custody of the first applicant ; ( c ) granted the second applicant access ( contact ) rights ; and ( d ) ordered the second applicant to make regular maintenance payments for the first applicant . In so deciding the court relied on the opinion of forensic experts in psychology and psychiatry obtained during the proceedings and on the recommendation of ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG , hereafter “ the local social welfare centre ” ) which participated in those proceedings as an intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the first applicant ’s interests . The judgment became final on DATE .

Previously , by a decision of DATE the local social welfare centre had ordered a child protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority in respect of the first applicant . The measure was imposed with a view to improving communication between the second applicant and GPE regarding the first applicant , and also with a view to preventing her from being drawn into their conflict . The measure lasted until DATE , when it was discontinued . In its decision of DATE the local social welfare centre stated , inter alia , the following :

“ The measure only partly achieved its goal , in that contact with the mother has stabilised . The parents still do not communicate with each other and it is evident that the mother intends to continue with such behaviour . Furthermore , the mother ’s cooperation with the supervising officer is not adequate and it is evident that the measure has become futile . ”

The applicants submit that on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant ’s father GPE hit her in the face and squeezed her throat while verbally abusing her .

DATE the second applicant took the first applicant to the police to report the incident . The police instructed them to see a doctor and accompanied them to the local hospital , where the first applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who diagnosed her with bruising of the eyeball and eye socket tissue . In particular , the ophthalmologist noted :

“ Clinically discrete haematoma of the left lower eyelid , in resorption . The motility of the eyes is normal , no diplopia [ double vision ] , no clinical signs of orbit fracture .

Pupils are normal , lenses [ are ] in place , transparent , fundus [ is ] normal on both sides .

ORG . : PERSON oc.sin .

GPE palp.inf.oc.sin .

Treatment : cold wraps [ compresses ] ... Into the eye : Effludimex sol ...

Dg :

SCARDINAL.CARDINAL . Bruising of the eyeball and the eye socket tissue ”

After examining the first applicant the ophthalmologist filled in a standard form to be submitted to the police , in which he indicated that the injury had been inflicted by a hard blow to the left eye , gave bruising of the left eyelid ( haematoma palp.inf.oc.sin . ) as his diagnosis , and described the injury as light .

The applicants then returned to the police , where they both gave statements . In her statement the first applicant mentioned other instances of physical and psychological violence by her father in DATE . The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with the first applicant reads as follows :

“ This interview was conducted regarding the violent behaviour of the [ child ’s ] father GPE

[ The child ] stated that DATE TIME , when she was getting ready to visit her mother ORG , she wanted to take a picture frame containing a lock of her hair which her mum had had framed when she had had her first haircut . She put the picture frame underneath her jacket because she knew that her dad would not allow her to take that picture frame to her mum . Then his girlfriend PERSON saw that she had something under her jacket and asked what it was . She replied that it was nothing . Then her father came and took the picture frame from under her jacket and told her that they would talk about it when she came home in TIME .

... In the evening , TIME , mum took her back to her dad , who brought her into the room and called her a thief , hit her with his hand on the left eye , and started squeezing her neck and pushing her . During this she fell , but did not hurt herself because she fell on a bag which was on the floor . Then she vomited saliva because she felt nauseous from her father ’s squeezing her neck . Then [ her father ’s partner ] ORG came and told her father to calm down , otherwise she [ the first applicant ] would vomit ... He then left and sat in the living room . She was very afraid and was crying , but nevertheless went to her room and did her homework for DATE . When she woke up in the morning she greeted her father with ‘ good ORG but he did not even look at her and just turned his head away . In TIME she felt slight pain under the left eye where her father had hit her . When she arrived at school she mentioned it to her teacher and her friends P. and A. , because she felt the need to confide in someone .

DATE she went to her mum and told her everything that happened TIME . She was also very hurt when her dad rudely [ swore at ] her . He often does that , and did so [ also ] DATE TIME . He also called her a ‘ cow’ and told her she was stupid . Because of his rude language she cried a lot thereafter . PERSON tells her from time to time [ to go to hell ] and she does not like swearing , especially when he mentions her mum while doing so . DATE the father told her that through his friends he would ensure that she never heard from or saw her mum . She is therefore very afraid of her dad because he can be dangerous . She had seen her dad beating her mum and was therefore afraid that he might beat her the same way too . She states that her father is often rude to her , yelling at her , forcing her to eat food she does not like , and when she does not , grabs her chin and shoves the food into her mouth , which makes her feel sick . He often takes away her mobile phone so she can not call her mum , and she would like to be in contact with her mum . Once he hit her on the leg with a hairbrush when she would not allow him to brush her hair . He also grabs her arm and squeezes it so hard that she has bruises afterwards . She states that she is very afraid of her dad and would like to live with her mum . TIME she definitely does not want to go with her father but wants to stay with her mum . She is afraid that her father will beat her and yell at her . He often threatens her by waving his hand at her and saying ‘ look at it , look at it’ , with the intention of hitting her if she does not listen to him . The father also threatens to cut off her hair , knowing that she likes [ her ] long hair . He threatens her with that when she is crying for her mum , bites her fingernails or asks for a mobile phone . Dad often tells her that she must not love her [ maternal ] grandmother , [ her mother ’s partner ] ORG or his mum , whereas she loves them all .

She further states that each time her mum or [ her mother ’s new partner ] ORG buys her something and she brings it to her father ’s home he throws all those things into the rubbish . Therefore , she wears the things her mum bought her only when she goes to her mum ’s place , as she is not allowed to wear them when she is at her dad ’s home .

Lastly , she states that she is very afraid of her dad and [ particularly ] ... that he might do something bad to her mum , because he constantly threatens to do so .

The interview was conducted in the presence of a social worker from ORG V.C. ”

DATE the police interviewed GPE and his partner I.P. The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with GPE reads as follows :

“ The interview was conducted in the presence of his advocate GPE , regarding the complaint that he had hit his minor daughter ... In that connection he stated the following :

[ He says that his former wife ] does not regularly pay maintenance for [ their ] daughter ... amounting to CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) per month and up to the present day owes [ him ] HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

[ He submits that ] , sadly , [ his former wife ] manipulates their daughter ... and uses her so that she rejects everything that bears [ his ] surname . She even created a ORG page for her under ... the surname of her current partner ...

As regards his relationship with his daughter ... , [ he ] states that he , as a parent who wants to teach his child to respect work and discipline , has his duties , and that the child has to have certain discipline , [ for example ] she must not lie to her parents , and may not do whatever she pleases . When [ his daughter ] comes back from school ... he requires her to do her homework and study . As regards food , [ he ] states that he wishes [ his daughter ] to eat healthy and varied food , with fruit and vegetables , rice and meat , and that she does not only eat pizzas , sandwiches and sweets . He also does not like to throw away food and prefers that it is eaten .

On DATE around TIME [ his daughter ] was preparing to go to her mother and came into the kitchen to say goodbye . On that occasion [ his partner ] GPE noticed that she had something under her jacket ... and asked what it was . [ The daughter ] replied that it was nothing , even though there was visibly something underneath it . He asked her to open her jacket . [ Then they realised ] that she had taken a glass picture frame containing the locks of her hair cut off when she was still a baby . [ He ] then asked her why she had not asked to take it instead of doing it the way she did , stealing from her own house . [ The daughter ] said that it was for her mum and that if she had asked him if she could take it he would not have allowed it . Then he told her to go to her mum and that they would talk about it later , when she came home .

[ The daughter ] came home at TIME and they continued their conversation because he wanted to tell her that what she had done was bad and that she should have asked instead of stealing things from the house and taking them to her mother . [ His daughter ] replied that she wanted [ the picture frame ] to be at her mother ’s place . [ He ] then reprimanded her for lying to him , saying that what she had done was sad or bad and that she always had to tell the truth because he did not tolerate lies and that all problems would be solved the way they had been solved so far . He admits that he is sometimes a strict parent but that he always behaves in a measured way and with [ good ] reason , and it is only ever exclusively done with a view to making her behave [ better ] .

DATE , on DATE [ his daughter ] was at school in the morning and in the afternoon was having fun with [ him ] and his [ partner ] ... Nothing suggested that [ she ] was in any way distressed by the previous evening ’s events .

[ He ] emphasises that all this was fabricated by her mother ... who has a negative influence on [ their daughter ] . ”

The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with ORG partner ORG reads as follows :

“ The interview was conducted regarding a complaint that GPE had hit his minor daughter ... In that connection she stated the following :

On DATE around TIME [ her stepdaughter ] was preparing to go to her mother and came into the kitchen to say goodbye to them . On that occasion [ FAC ] noticed that she had something under her jacket ... and asked her what it was . [ Her stepdaughter ] replied that it was nothing , even though there was visibly something underneath her jacket . GPE asked her to open her jacket . [ Then they realised ] that she had taken a glass picture frame containing locks of her hair cut off when she was a baby . [ He ] then asked [ his daughter ] why she had not asked to take it instead of doing it the way she did , stealing from her own house . [ The stepdaughter ] said that it was for her mum , and that if she had asked him for it he would not have allowed it . Then he told her to go to her mum and that they would talk about it later , when she came home .

[ The stepdaughter ] came home at TIME and she and her father continued their conversation , because he wanted to tell her that what she had done was bad and that she should have asked instead of stealing things from the house and taking them to her mother . [ The stepdaughter ] replied that she wanted [ the picture frame ] to be at her mother ’s place . GPE then reprimanded her for lying to him , by saying that what she had done was sad or bad and that she always had to tell the truth because he did not tolerate lies and that all problems would be solved the way they had been solved so far . ORG firmly states that on that occasion GPE did not hit [ his daughter ] , nor has she ever seen him hitting [ her ] . She says that GPE has a temper and sometimes shouts when he considers that something is wrong , but that he is really not prone to physical violence or hitting the children . ORG notes that [ her stepdaughter ] is generally very sensitive about her mother and immediately starts crying as regards anything related to her . ”

After the interviews , the first applicant was returned to her father GPE , following the intervention of an employee of the local social welfare centre .

On DATE the first applicant was , at the initiative of the second applicant , examined by a psychiatrist at ORG . The relevant part of the psychiatrist ’s observations reads as follows :

“ The child was with the mother at the police station and reported the incident [ of CARDINAL DATE ] because the mother , and also the child , claim that this was not the first time that the father has mistreated [ the child ] , although not so much physically as psychologically ...

During the interview with the girl it is evident that the child gets very upset at the mention of the father , she is afraid of him , ‘ constantly thinks that he will hit her again and would like to stay with GPE . PERSON is allegedly constantly threatening that he will ‘ cut off her hair if she keeps crying and mentioning mum ... ’ he often swears and utters vulgar expressions against the mother;all this was allegedly reported to the police ... ( the interview was conducted first with the mother alone and then with the girl , also alone ; [ the child ] talks about it all through tears and while biting her fingernails ) ....

The girl says that she remembers that ‘ she was asked when she was little with whom she wished to live and that she said with dad because she was told that she had to say that , now she regrets it’ ( she is crying all the time ) .

The girl otherwise appears to have good intellectual capacity ; she functions well outside the family , and is an A - grade pupil . There are no signs of psychotic disorder , and the girl is emphatic in contact except when she gets upset and talks rapidly when the topic of the father and his relationship with her is raised ( thus there is an impression of strong fear of the father ) .

Given the complexity of the family situation ( the father has remarried and [ the child ] lives with him , his new wife , her daughter from her first marriage and CARDINAL small half - sisters , while the mother also has a new partner with whom she has a small son ) and the evident traumatisation of the child which has probably already lasted a long time , a psychiatric assessment of the child is recommended .

Until then ... I recommend taking the girl to a psychologist ...

ORG . Abused child , T CARDINAL ”

On DATE the second applicant took the first applicant to a psychologist in GPE , who , inter alia , made the following observations :

“ The interviews , which were conducted with the mother alone and separately with the girl , indicate that the child is afraid of her father because he psychologically and sometimes physically abuses her ...

The girl ... says that she would gladly live with mum if she could , and that dad speaks badly of mum ...

The results show that [ the child ] is emotionally attached to her mum and thinks that her dad does not love her , is afraid of him , does not trust him , and thinks that it is not fair that dad constantly yells at her even when she is not at fault . Her biggest wish is to live with her mum and her family , and she finds it difficult to return to her dad ’s home . She identifies with her mother and thinks that they are very much alike .

Findings : [ The girl ] is a traumatised child with well above - average mental abilities , strong self - control , neuroticism , depressive affect , hypersensitive , anxious with strong inferiority complex . Discrete tremor is diagnosed .

I recommend psychological and , if need be , psychiatric counselling . ”

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u ORG , hereafter “ the ORG Attorney ” ) informed the second applicant that on DATE it had , concerning the incident of CARDINAL DATE , indicted GPE before ORG for the criminal offence of bodily injury defined in LAW of LAW ( for a more detailed description of the course of those proceedings see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , DATE , the second applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG seeking reversal of the custody arrangements set forth in that court ’s judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; for a more detailed description of the course of those proceedings see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the second applicant took the first applicant back to the same psychologist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The psychiatrist made the following observations :

“ ... The interview with [ the child ] was conducted without her mother ’s presence .

In contact silent , with depressive affect , cooperative , bites her fingernails , occasionally cries . We again had a conversation about the events of CARDINAL DATE during which the child was psychologically and physically abused by her father , and which she in her mother ’s presence reported to the police .

[ The child ] says that that was not an isolated incident and that she is afraid of her father because she has continuously , from the moment she started living with him , been exposed to psychological and , from time to time , also physical abuse . She says that on multiple occasions he has threatened that he would hit her if she kept biting her fingernails and that he would take her mobile phone away . Previously she was more afraid of her father ’s physical violence than now , but her mother encourages her by telling her not to be afraid and to ‘ endure difficult moments’ . The child states that she does not like living with her father because he threatens her and tells her that he will beat her . She says that mum loves her more , does not threaten her and is good to her . She uses suppression and ‘ ORG as defence mechanisms ...

The child states that the father yells at her almost every day , swears , tells her that she is a ‘ stupid cow , pig , goat , thief , that she constantly defies him’ . She says that this offensive behaviour by her father is rarer since she reported him to the police .

[ The child ] says that the father has threatened her that he will , through ‘ his people’ , take care that she does not hear from or see her mother . He threatens her that he will cut off her hair if she cries for her mother .

The child alleges that her father forces her to eat so that she has to eat everything he puts on her plate and that she sometimes vomits because of that . If she refuses to eat everything the father holds her chin and ‘ shoves’ the food in her mouth . If she resists , he smears the food over her face .

After she reported him to the police , the father controlled himself for DATE , and then again started yelling but then to a lesser degree . He no longer shoves food in her mouth , but she has to eat everything he puts on her plate . Sometimes she has to eat something that she does not like , which the mother never does to her .

[ The child ] is lonely at her father ’s home , because she spends time only with her CARDINAL - sisters ; her friends are not allowed to visit in case [ the younger CARDINAL - sister ] gets sick . After school the father allows her to meet with friends for TIME only . She visited CARDINAL of her friends only once and she did not dare to ask the father for more visits . She thinks that her father is stricter with her than with her older CARDINAL - sister .

I found out that the father speaks badly of the mother and her new partner in front of the child , that she has different clothes at her mother ’s and her father ’s places , and that the father threw the sneakers she got as a birthday present from her mother and her partner into the rubbish .

Asked about her father ’s wife , she says that she is better to her than her father : does not force her to eat , has never hit her , helps her with homework , and brushes her hair .

The child shows a strong desire to live with her mother because she is emotionally closer to her , and because the mother supports her in difficult moments . She has many friends in her mother ’s neighbourhood and is encouraged to spend time with them ; she has fun and feels safe with her mother . Asked about [ the behaviour of ] her mother ’s partner towards her , the child says he is good to her and tries to cheer her up , buys her presents , and is fun and pleasant to talk to .

To the question whether , if she were to live with her mother , she would be allowed to see her father outside the visiting schedule ordered by the court , she says that it is certain that her mum would allow her to see her father whenever she wished to and states that ‘ she would like to move to her mum ’s [ place ] right away and forever’ .

Findings and recommendations : In order to prevent the development of irreversible psychopathological consequences due to continuous abuse , it is recommended that the child be immediately removed from the family where she currently lives and that custody be awarded to the mother .

Psychological and if need be , psychiatric follow - up is also recommended . ”

On DATE the second applicant again took the first applicant to the police to report another instance of abuse by her father , who had allegedly pressured her to change her earlier statements made before the police and the experts . The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with the first applicant on that occasion reads as follows :

“ This interview was conducted regarding inappropriate behaviour of the [ child ’s ] father GPE

[ The child ] stated that DATE her dad ’s girlfriend PERSON asked her whether she had visited a certain lady in GPE with her mum . She had replied that she had , whereupon I. had asked her what she had talked about with that lady in GPE and why she had not said anything about [ it ] to her dad . She replied that she had forgotten to mention it . After that her father had called her on her mobile phone and asked her to come to his café ... immediately . When she had arrived there he had started yelling at her and asking why she had been saying bad things about him and why she had not told him that she had been in GPE ... After that he had told her that she was lying like a dog and told her to get out of his sight .

... Afterwards her dad had kept asking her whether she really wanted to live with her mum and she always replied that she did . DATE he had told her that she would not live with her mum until she was DATE .

[ The child ] also states that he said that he would report her mum for taking her to a doctor in GPE , and that she [ the mother ] would receive a criminal complaint for [ having done ] that . He [ also ] told her that he would now take her to a psychologist and to some other people where she would have to say that he had not hit her and that he was good to her .

DATE he had again asked her whether she really wanted to live with her mum and she had again replied to him that she did want to live with her mum .

This interview was conducted in the presence of the [ child ’s ] mother ... ”

On DATE the first applicant ’s father took her to a psychiatrist at the PERSON for ORG in GPE , who , after studying the opinions of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE and DATE and above ) and interviewing the first applicant , in his observations noted , inter alia , the following :

“ It is evident that [ the child ] is very burdened by her GPE conflict and the inadequacy of their mutual communication , which frequently goes through her . The girl shows affection towards , rather than fear of , her father . However , when asked what happened [ on DATE ] she did not want to talk about it ; she was visibly emotionally burdened so I did not insist on it . She freely expresses her dissatisfaction by saying that she does not like it when her father raises his voice . Asked when that happens , she replies : ‘ when I do something bad’ .

She is functioning well at school , says that she has many friends ... that at her mother ’s place she also has friends and likes to go there , but that she feels comfortable at home with her father because she gets on well with ... the daughter of her father ’s new partner ...

Her mental state is dominated by the emotional burden of her GPE conflict , high emotional tensions , the need to be close to her mother ( whom she wishes to please by being with her ) and , in her relationship with her father , by the conflict of loyalties she has been placed in .

I am of the opinion that the girl has been drawn into a conflict of loyalties and is very burdened by her GPE disagreements and conflict , which has resulted in high emotional pressure , anxiety and hypersensitivity .

I recommend that the parents undergo family counselling and possibly afterwards also family therapy together with [ their daughter ] . ”

On DATE the father took the first applicant back to the same psychiatrist who , in so far as relevant , noted :

“ The interview with the girl was conducted alone . [ The child ] states that she feels good , that she can not wait for school to end but that she has no difficulties in school . She gets on well with both her father ’s wife and her mother ’s partner , and regards her CARDINAL - brother and CARDINAL - sisters as real siblings . She is still sad about her GPE differences and their inability to adequately communicate [ with each other ] and their different parenting styles . ”

In the course of the above - mentioned custody proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the court ordered a combined expert opinion from experts in psychiatry and psychology . Accordingly , the applicants and the first applicant ’s father were examined by forensic experts of this type at ORG in GPE . As part of the preparation of their opinion each expert conducted interviews , inter alia , with the first applicant . In particular , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was interviewed by each expert ; on DATE she was interviewed only by the expert in psychiatry . The interviews of DATE were conducted without the first applicant ’s parents being present , that of DATE in the presence of her mother ( the second applicant ) , and those of DATE in the presence of her father .

The relevant part of the record of the interview of DATE with the expert in psychiatry reads as follows :

“ [ The child ] states that she always tells the truth , literally always , and that she feels her worst when she is told that she is a liar like her mum .

... She very clearly articulates her emotional bond and closeness with her mother and her wish to live with her . ...

[ The child ] states that she once attempted to talk with her father about living with her mother , but that the conversation ended quickly with him telling her that there would be no discussion about that and that she would stay with him until she was DATE ... She says that her father is very strict and that he often shouts at and insults her , which makes her embarrassed and scared . The last time he attacked her , because of the picture [ frame ] , PERSON [ her father ’s partner ] stopped him , and she felt nauseous ...

She says that she complained to her mother about her father , which was why she went to the police with her . She was particularly struck when the social worker came to the police [ station ] and talked to her mother ; she heard the social worker say that unless they agreed on where [ their daughter ] was going to live she would be placed in a children ’s home . ( The girl cries for a long time afterwards ) .

When asked how it is to live with her father , she states that she would prefer to live with her mother as she is closer to her ... ”

The relevant part of the record of the interview of DATE with the expert in psychology reads as follows :

“ Dad is so- so . When he is in a good mood , he is good . When he is not [ in a good mood ] he is not [ good ] . Once when he forced me to eat I vomited.’ ...

‘ PERSON is great . Good , fair and does not hit me . She does not threaten me . I do not fight with her that much . I am calmer when I am with my mum , there are not that many fights , I am more relaxed.’

... She said that she came to the expert assessment ‘ because of what dad did to me and because I want to live with my mum . I wanted ... He threatened me ... ’ She cried and indistinctly through tears says that her dad smeared food over her face as a joke so she felt ugly and embarrassed . ‘ He hit me once ... He said that he did not but that he only made a [ threatening ] gesture with his finger ... ’

After she calmed down we cameng back to the traumatic incident .

You started crying ?

‘ ... He did this to me ( she demonstrates with her hand round her neck ) . Dad hit me and I always cry so I almost vomited . [ He squeezed me ] this hard ( she is touching her throat and chin ) so that I almost vomited ... ’

‘ [ He called me a thief ] and I said I was not and then he hit me near the eye ( she shows the left temple ) ... He asked me if I would do that again ( she needs to be interrupted because she is speaking indistinctly while sobbing ) ... [ DATE ] ... I told my mum what he had done to me . She told me that we could go to the police and there I told [ them what happened ] ... The first lady [ the policewoman ] there was good . The other [ the social worker ] pulled my hand while saying that I have to go to my dad . I did not want [ to go ] . She then told me that if mum gets into a fight with dad she will go to jail and I will go into a children ’s home ( she is sobbing ) . I had to go with my father . PERSON said that we would not talk about that ... ’

‘ DATE he told me that he had never hit me and that he had not done anything to me and that I should tell the truth . But he did hit me . He also told me that when he smeared the food over my face it was a joke , but I felt embarrassed . He also told me that if I mentioned it he would call [ the stepmother and stepsister ] to say that it was a joke , which would make me look like a liar . I felt embarrassed and ugly then ...

‘ He threatened to cut off my hair if did not stop biting my nails , and to take my mobile phone away.’

‘ Once we were in the car together ... he saw mum with [ her new partner ] in the next lane . He said that he would put both of them to jail and kill them . He swore at them a lot . He told them many bad things ... DATE or shortly afterwards he said that through his people he would ensure that my mum and me did not see or hear from each other.’

‘ I was at a doctor ’s in GPE some time ago . He asked me something about school but he seemed bad to me and I did not want to talk to him and I did not tell the truth . After DATE we went to him again . I said I wanted to live with my mum but I did not mention that my dad had hit me . Then I was afraid of my dad , and still am because I knew he would say that he had not hit me ... ’

‘ Once he hit me when I was little , I do not remember , once ... ’

‘ He gets upset when I can not eat something . When I say something [ to justify myself ] he asks why I defy him . He used to insult me . He called me a cow , stupid goat . He swore at me . He told me to go to hell ... he said that to me many times . He also told me to fuck off many times ... He told me that my mum was a whore ( she is crying ) ...

‘ PERSON tells me that I can not do certain things . She does not threaten me . Sometimes she raises her voice , but she does it rarely and then I do not do it any more . ”

The relevant part of the record of the interview conducted on DATE with the expert in psychiatry reads as follows :

“ This interview was conducted with the girl and the mother together in order to observe their mutual interaction . During the interview it is noticeable that the girl is somewhat more withdrawn and serious than during the previous interview ...

At some point the girl has a strong emotional reaction . The girl states ( while crying ) that she would like to celebrate her forthcoming birthday at her mum ’s place ... given that she celebrated her last birthday with her father . The mother did not manage to calm the girl completely or ease her frustration . Instead , she herself looked anxious and frustrated , almost lost . ”

The relevant part of the record of the interview of CARDINAL DATE with the expert in psychiatry reads as follows :

“ This interview was conducted with the girl and the father together in order to observe their mutual interaction . During the interview it is noticeable that the girl is somewhat more withdrawn and deep in her thoughts , and seems restrained ... Asked if she would like to change something , she says that she would like to live with her mum and that she wishes to be able to extend the time she spends with CARDINAL parent when she wants to stay with that parent longer . While saying that the girl reacts emotionally ( she is crying ) . In the course of it there is no mutual contact between the girl and her father ; there is no eye contact , nor is the father trying to calm her . Each [ keeps ] to themselves , with their eyes fixed forward . ”

The relevant part of the record of the interview of CARDINAL DATE with the expert in psychology reads as follows :

“ She states in her father ’s presence : ‘ I would like to live with my mum and decide when visits should take place , to go with my mum or my dad ( she is crying ) . Dad adds : ‘ That would be the best ... ’

To the direct question whether she asked her dad about it , she replies that she did not . She adds that once she asked her dad [ about it ] and that he said that she could not go to her mum ... ”

On DATE the first applicant wrote the following in her school essay :

“ ... they all think that they know me but they do n’t know even a third of me . They judge me by my success in school , but that is n’t me . They do n’t know what is happening , they see me as a happy girl , but I am the opposite of that . I have lived with my dad since I was DATE , and from day one I wanted to go to [ live with ] my mum ... PERSON tells me he wo n’t let me go until I am DATE ... For some time already I have found comfort in cutting myself ... the scars are no longer visible , only when I play volleyball or some other ball game and when my arm turns red , then they are visible . ”

Alarmed by the first applicant ’s admission of self - harm in the school essay , on DATE the second applicant took her to the same psychologist who had examined her on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In her observations the psychologist noted the following :

“ [ The girl ] came accompanied by her mother because the mother had learned of [ her daughter ’s ] self - harm , which [ the girl ] had written about in a school essay ... of DATE .

Interview :

Depressive , anxious at the beginning ... verbally fluent . We are talking in the absence of the mother .

After the her GPE divorce , [ the girl ] lived with her mother . She says that was the happiest period in her life . She had lived with her father since she was DATE ] ... Relations in the family she described as conflictual , she is afraid of her father . She describes emotional blackmail by her [ paternal ] grandmother and threats and emotional blackmail by her father , as well as occasional abuse by the father , on which there are medical and police reports . She states that when she was DATE , she [ because of being ] manipulated and intimidated by her father , stated during the [ forensic ] expert examination [ in the course of divorce proceedings ] that she wanted to live ‘ DATE [ when asked which parent she would like to live with ] . She says that her dad told her to say that but that she did not know what it meant . Since the divorce became final she has lived with her father , and has suffered because she has a close and trusting relationship with her mother and her mother ’s partner . From that time on she has been expressing the wish to live with her mother , but despite all her statements [ to that effect ] ... the [ relevant ] authorities pay no heed ... Thanks to her mother ’s support and understanding she is still functional [ that is she manages to live normally ] but is unhappy because she can not live with her mother .

She says that she is unhappy , that she does not understand why the [ relevant ] authorities are ignoring her , and that they do not understand how much they are abusing her by not taking appropriate measures .

In her school essay ( which was presented ) she mentions that she cut herself on the arms . Her friend helped her to deal with the scars . When asked why she did that , she replies that it was because she felt helpless in enduring the constant pressure in her father ’s family , constant conflicts , inability to manage her own time , and refusal to let her live with her mother , which would make her happy . Other behaviour mentioned in the essay points to the development of an obsessive - compulsive disorder , fear of the dark , anxious - depressive symptomatology , and emotional control disorder . These are not related to puberty but indicate post - traumatic stress symptomatology , emotional disorders caused by constant frustrations , and child abuse ...

The girl has for DATE been burdened by expert examinations , judicial proceedings , interviews at the social welfare centre , and the hope that someone will finally listen to her plea to live with her mother , because since DATE she has been unhappy because she has to live with her father . She enjoys her mother ’s and her mother ’s partner ’s company , and they are supportive , but she is afraid that she will not be able to live with them for a long time yet . She is unhappy because her father constantly fights with her and does not want her to be happy ( as she would be if she lived with her mother ) . She ‘ hates the situation she is in , where she is forced to live with her dad . She wants to become an advocate and she would never allow her child to suffer as she does because she is not allowed to choose with whom ... to live.’

She is introverted , anxious ... Emotional suffering , distrust , depression , fear , guilt , reduced impulse control and problems with facing stress are diagnosed . These symptoms are related to inability to control her desires and to plan and organise . Despite previously established above - average cognitive capacities , a reduced level of openness and a need for new experiences is detected . This is probably because of continuing obstruction of her freedom of action . Despite constant obstructions she is still willing to fight for herself . She is empathic .

She has very developed defence mechanisms . However , symptoms of post - traumatic stress are also detected .

Conclusion :

Elements of strong psychological trauma are diagnosed ( post - traumatic stress ) , which are , according to her statements , the result of frustration caused by the abuse by her father and the authorities who are ignoring her wish to live with her mother , and [ which serve ] to protect her from suffering and the feeling of helplessness , which she reduces by obsessive - compulsive disorder and by harming herself . ”

As already mentioned above ( see paragraph DATE ) , on DATE the ORG Attorney indicted the first applicant ’s father before ORG for having committed the criminal offence of bodily injury defined in LAW of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) during the incident of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the court issued a penal order ( kazneni nalog ) , finding him guilty as charged and imposing a fine of HRK CARDINAL .

On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant ’s father challenged the penal order , arguing that the basis on which it had been issued was false . The court accordingly set aside the penal order , and the proceedings resumed under the rules of summary criminal procedure .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because neither the accused nor the summoned witnesses attended it .

At the hearing held on DATE the first applicant ’s father pleaded not guilty and made a statement . He also proposed that several witnesses be heard . The applicants proposed that they themselves be heard .

At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the second applicant , CARDINAL of the police officers who had interviewed the applicants following the incident of CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant ’s schoolteacher , and PERSON , a psychologist who had acted as supervising officer during the implementation of the first child protection measure in respect of the supervision of the exercise of parental authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The police officer stated that she had not noticed any visible injuries on the first applicant during the interview with her DATE after the incident of DATE . The first applicant ’s schoolteacher had not seen any injuries either . He also testified that he had noticed that the first applicant had seemed sad DATE after the incident and that he had talked to her about this ; the first applicant had told him on that occasion that her father had not hit her . PERSON , who said that he had spoken with the first applicant some time after the incident in the capacity of a private individual and at her father ’s request , testified that the first applicant had told him that her father had yelled at her and that she had been afraid that he would hit her but that he had not . He also stated that as a school psychologist he knew very well how to recognise signs of abuse in children and that the first applicant had not shown such signs .

On DATE the court decided to obtain an expert opinion from a medical expert on the first applicant ’s injuries .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the summoned witnesses failed to attend it .

On DATE the expert submitted his opinion , which stated that it was possible , but could not be determined with certainty , that the first applicant ’s injury had been sustained during the incident of l DATE . The relevant part of his opinion states as follows :

“ The following injury was established [ at the time ] by medical examination :

small haematoma of the left lower eyelid .

This injury constitutes a bodily injury .

The injury was inflicted by some hard and blunt object . It was inflicted by a single blow of low intensity .

The mechanism of the injury could correspond to the course of events as they were described to the doctor by the injured party during the examination ( a blow with the hand to the eye ) .

However , it is to be noted that the injury was described by the doctor who performed the examination as a haematoma in resorption , thus in [ the process of ] disappearing , fading . That normally happens after a certain period of time , for example , DATE , after an injury . It would not be common for resorption to already be visible DATE after the injury .

It follows from the above that the injury could have been inflicted during the incident in question , but that a causal link can not be established with certainty . ”

At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the other police officer who had interviewed the first applicant on DATE , the social worker who had been present during the interview with the police , and the doctor who had examined her on DATE .

The police officer testified that the first applicant did indeed not want to return to her father and that the social worker from the local social welfare centre had indeed told her that they would have to temporarily place her in a children ’s home if she refused . She also testified that she had not seen any signs of injury on the first applicant . The social worker testified that she had not noticed any signs of injury on the first applicant either . She also stated that while it was true that the first applicant had not wanted to return to her father , she had changed her mind after they spoke , in the course of which she had not mentioned the alternative of sending the first applicant to a children ’s home . The doctor who examined the first applicant stated that resorption of a haematoma occurred more quickly in children and young people . While he excluded the possibility that the injury could have been caused by crying and rubbing the eyes he did not rule out the possibility that it had been caused by , for example , the first applicant being hit by the ball during her volleyball practice . The ORG representative reiterated their proposal that the first applicant be heard .

In order to decide on that proposal , the court decided to consult the case file concerning the above - mentioned custody proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . Eventually , the court decided to hear the first applicant via video link on DATE .

However , that hearing was adjourned because on DATE the first applicant ’s father sought withdrawal of the trial judge ; that application was dismissed by the court ’s president on DATE .

Since none of the courts in GPE was equipped with a video link device , the court asked the police authorities to provide it . The police informed the court that it would make available a video - link device on CARDINAL DATE . Accordingly , the examination of the first applicant was scheduled for DATE .

NORP However , on DATE the police authorities informed the court that they would not be able to provide the device on DATE .

According to the ORG , the proceedings are still pending , depending on the availability of the video link device .

Meanwhile , on DATE the second applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG Attorney against the first applicant ’s father accusing him of the criminal offence of child abuse as defined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In particular , the second applicant argued that he had physically and psychologically abused the first applicant by : ( a ) in the period DATE and DATE , inter alia , swearing at her and calling her names , frequently forcing her to eat food she did not like , and force - feeding her when she refused , threatening to hit her , cut off her long hair and ensure that she never saw or heard from her mother , hitting her with a hairbrush on CARDINAL occasion , among others , and ( b ) on DATE hitting the first applicant several times in the face and squeezing her throat while verbally abusing her , as a result of which she was later diagnosed by an ophthalmologist with bruising of the eyeballs and eye - socket tissue .

On DATE the ORG Attorney asked the of ORG PERSON ) investigating judge to : ( a ) question the suspect , ( b ) take statements from his partner and from the second applicant and her partner , and ( c ) order a combined expert opinion from experts in psychiatry and psychology .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG itself ordered a combined expert opinion from certain court experts in psychiatry and psychology . On DATE it set that order aside after finding that such a combined expert opinion had already been obtained in the context of the above - mentioned custody proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the State Attorney dismissed the second applicant ’s criminal complaint , finding that there were not sufficient grounds to suspect that the first applicant ’s father had committed the criminal offence the second applicant had accused him of . In so doing the State Attorney ’s ORG addressed only the part of her complaint concerning the alleged abuse of the first applicant in the period DATE and DATE , and not the part concerning the incident of CARDINAL DATE . After examining the statements made to the police by the suspect and his partner , the second applicant and her partner , psychiatrists’ opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the psychologist ’s opinion of CARDINAL DATE , and the combined expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and DATE above and paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the ORG Attorney gave the following reasons for his decision :

“ Analysing the above facts , it follows that the suspect PERSON conduct or the conduct of [ the second applicant ] can not be regarded as conscious and deliberate emotional or physical child abuse , but rather as inadequate child - rearing practice [ parenting style ] and reaction caused by parental conflict over child custody , persistence of long - lasting mutual unresolved conflicts , and limited parenting capacity ...

In view of the foregoing ... there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect GPE committed the criminal offence he is accused of ... ”

The first and second applicants then decided to take over the prosecution from the ORG Attorney as injured parties in the role of ( subsidiary ) prosecutors . As LAW requires that an accused be questioned before being indicted , on DATE the applicants asked an investigating judge ( sudac istrage ) of ORG to question the first applicant ’s father .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge dismissed the ORG request , holding that the facts adduced by the applicants did not constitute the criminal offence of child abuse . In so doing he relied on the combined expert opinion of the forensic experts in psychiatry and psychology of CARDINAL DATE obtained in the custody proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :

“ ... the conduct can not be regarded as abuse [ because the combined expert opinion ] did not confirm the diagnosis of child abuse . This is very strongly indicated by the recommendation that changing the child ’s residence is not advisable . Had that diagnosis been established , the recommendation concerning the child ’s residence would have certainly been very different . ”

On DATE a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the decision of the investigating judge . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :

“ [ The child is under supervision ] by the [ local ] social welfare centre . It is therefore evident that if the suspect had behaved in an unseemly or inappropriate manner towards her as a parent that the centre would have reacted . There must have been reasons why the father was awarded care of the child . If there is any change in circumstances that decision could also be changed . According to the expert opinion no elements of abuse were found ... ”

On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared inadmissible a subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicants . It held that the contested decisions of ORG were not susceptible to constitutional review . ORG served its decision on the ORG representative on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the second applicant brought a civil action in ORG against the first applicant ’s father with a view to altering the custody and contact arrangements ordered in the judgment of the same court of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular , she sought custody of the first applicant . At the same time the second applicant asked the court to issue a provisional measure whereby it would temporarily grant her custody of the first applicant pending the final outcome of the principal proceedings .

The court regarded the second applicant ’s civil action as an application for non - contentious proceedings , as it considered that the rules on non - contentious procedure rather than those on regular civil procedure should apply in such matters . It held hearings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

The local social welfare centre participated in those proceedings as an intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the first applicant ’s interests .

At the hearing held on DATE the second applicant ’s representative insisted on the provisional measure being issued . The representative of the local social welfare centre stated that the situation in the first applicant ’s family was very complex , that her parents had made numerous criminal complaints against each other , and that both parents should be assessed by forensic experts . He also stated that the centre could not at that time make a recommendation as regards the provisional measure requested , because such a recommendation could only be made after completion of the family assessment procedure by a team of professionals employed at the centre . The second applicant ’s representative replied that the centre had been aware of the incident of CARDINAL DATE but had taken no action to address the situation in the first applicant ’s family . She therefore insisted on pursuing the application for a provisional measure .

On CARDINAL DATE the local social welfare centre submitted its report and recommendation to the court . In the course of their preparation of this report the centre interviewed the second applicant and the first applicant ’s father on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , visited their homes and requested an opinion from the first applicant ’s school . The relevant part of the centre ’s report reads as follows :

“ The allegations of the [ child ’s parents ] who accuse each other of child abuse are impossible to verify , nor can a straightforward conclusion be made only on the basis of interviews with them or on the basis of visits to their families .

There is an impression that the parents , burdened by their permanently strained relationship and the need of each of them to live with the child , consciously or subconsciously place themselves and their needs first while disregarding the welfare and the needs of the child .

The child protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority was previously ordered in respect of the parents during the divorce proceedings , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

Given that the already bad communication between the parents has worsened again , which brings about negative tensions which could be harmful for the child ’s emotional development , and having regard to the fact that they are again facing court proceedings , the centre is in the process of imposing the same measure with a view to protecting the rights and welfare of [ the child ] through which [ the centre ] shall monitor the mother ’s and the father ’s relationship with the child and [ in the implementation of which ] they will be advised how to improve communication between them and strengthen their parenting competencies . ”

The social welfare centre recommended a combined expert assessment of the first applicant and her parents with a view to establishing their parenting abilities and the possible consequences of their behaviour for her physical and mental development . They added that the first applicant ’s family situation was complex but that at that moment there was nothing to suggest that it was life - threatening . The relevant part of the social welfare centre ’s recommendation reads as follows :

“ After having conducted the family assessment procedure ... it was established that the parents express opposing views as regards abuse and neglect of [ their child ] . [ The mother ] accuses the father of child abuse [ in that ] he is abusing the child physically and emotionally , obstructing her contact with the mother , and using inappropriate child rearing methods . [ The father ] accuses [ the mother ] of neglecting the child ’s interests by her behaviour [ in that ] she does not pay child maintenance , does not come to school to consult with teachers or to GPE meetings and that the child is being manipulated by the mother ...

Having regard to the medical documentation at the disposal of the centre , the parties’ submissions , visits made to [ the father ’s and the mother ’s ] homes and interviews with them , we recommend that the parents and the child undergo a combined [ psychiatric and psychological ] expert assessment in order to assess their fitness for further care of [ their daughter ] and the possible consequences of their behaviour for her psycho - physical development .

It is true that the family situation is complex . However , there is no impression that at present [ the child ’s ] life is at risk in her father ’s family . ”

By decisions of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL and DATE the court ordered a combined expert opinion from forensic experts in psychiatry and psychology who were to assess : ( a ) the parenting capacities of the second applicant and the first applicant ’s father , ( b ) the first applicant ’s condition , and ( c ) whether the first applicant had been exposed to abuse and , if so , by whom .

By a decision of DATE the court refused to issue a provisional measure sought by the second applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In so deciding the court examined the ophthalmologist ’s report of DATE , the psychiatrists’ opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and the psychologist ’s opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . It also consulted the case file of the criminal proceedings in respect of the bodily injury , and examined the report and recommendation of the local social welfare centre of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It found , in view of the conflicting opinions of the psychiatrists , the penal order against the first applicant ’s father which never became final , and the recommendation of the local social welfare centre , that at that point the allegations that the first applicant had been abused by her father were not plausible enough to justify her immediate temporary removal from his custody . In particular , the court held as follows :

“ ... the case was not sufficiently plausibly made that such a measure was necessary to prevent violence or the risk of irreparable harm from materializing , given that at present it remains uncertain and disputed whether [ the child ] was subject to abuse by her father or was being manipulated by her mother ... ”

DATE . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the second applicant and upheld the first - instance decision .

On DATE the forensic experts submitted their opinion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG . In their opinion the experts found that both the second applicant and the first applicant ’s father had limited parenting abilities and suffered from personality disorders ( both of them were emotionally unstable and the first applicant ’s father was also narcissistic ) . As regards the first applicant , the experts found that she was emotionally traumatised by her GPE separation and their mutual conflict and lack of communication . Instead of shielding her from that conflict her parents had placed her at the centre of it and manipulated her sometimes up to the level of emotional abuse . The experts therefore recommended that the first applicant and her parents receive appropriate therapy . They further found that the first applicant was ambivalent towards her father and idealised her mother , whom she viewed as a “ friend ” , and expressed the wish to live with her . The experts were of the opinion that this desire to be close to her mother could be achieved through ( more ) extensive contact between the first and the second applicant . If after DATE of recommended therapy the first applicant still wished to live with her mother , they recommended that another combined expert opinion be obtained .

The experts did not reply to the court ’s question whether the first applicant had been exposed to abuse and , if so , by whom ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Their conclusions were : ( a ) that the first applicant should nevertheless remain living with her father for the time being while maintaining extensive contact with her mother , ( b ) that she and both her parents should undergo treatment and counselling , ( c ) that the supervision of the exercise of parental authority ( the child protection measure imposed by the local social welfare centre , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , should be continued , and ( d ) the first applicant and her parents should be reassessed after DATE . In particular , the experts concluded :

“ We do not find [ any ] contraindications to [ the child ’s living with her father . [ Our ] recommendation is that , for the time being it is not necessary or desirable to change the child ’s place of residence , that is to say [ the child ] should continue living with her father . ”

Following a request by the second applicant , by a decision of DATE ORG appointed PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE , to act as a special representative for the first applicant and represent her interests in the proceedings , as required by DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW on the Exercise of Children ’s Rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Following an appeal by the first applicant ’s father , on DATE the ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case . It held that the first - instance court had failed to establish whether the interests of the first applicant were indeed in conflict with the interests of ( CARDINAL of ) her parents , which was a necessary precondition for the appointment of a special representative .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the local social welfare centre appointed the same person to act as the first applicant ’s guardian ad litem pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG held further hearings in the case on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

At the last mentioned hearing the court heard the experts who had prepared the combined expert opinion of DATE . Those experts stated , inter alia : ( a ) that their expert opinion had in the meantime become obsolete , because DATE had passed since they had prepared it ( b ) they had not replied to the court ’s question whether the first applicant had been exposed to abuse , because it was the task of the judicial authorities and not theirs to make that assessment and ( c ) it would be irrelevant which parent the first applicant should live with if her parents both behaved better .

DATE . By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s application for the custody and contact arrangements stipulated in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE to be reversed . The second applicant and the first applicant ’s guardian ad litem appealed .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance decision for incomplete facts and remitted the case to the lower court . It instructed the first - instance court to : ( a ) inquire whether the first applicant ’s father ’s conviction for the criminal offence of bodily injury against her had become final , ( b ) assess whether the first applicant was able to understand the importance of the proceedings and , if so , allow her to express her opinion and take her testimony , ( c ) assess the need to appoint a special representative to the first applicant , and ( d ) obtain an opinion and recommendation from the local social welfare centre .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG discontinued the non - contentious proceedings and decided that the proceedings would be continued under the rules of ( regular ) civil procedure . The court explained that the second applicant ’s application for reversal of the custody and contact arrangements set forth in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) would , if agreed , necessarily entail a new decision on payment of maintenance by the non - custodial parent , which was an issue that could not be decided in non - contentious but only in regular civil proceedings . That did not mean that procedural acts undertaken thus far had lost their validity or become irrelevant .

On DATE the second applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time , complaining about the length of the proceedings .

On DATE the president of ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request .

It would appear that the proceedings are currently again pending before ORG as the court of first instance .

Following the incident of CARDINAL DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the local social welfare centre again ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) issued a decision ordering the child protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority in respect of the first applicant . The measure was imposed for DATE and was , by the centre ’s decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL , further extended for DATE , until DATE , when it was discontinued .

In her final report of DATE the supervising officer ( a psychologist ) summarised the results of the measure in the following terms :

“ The aim of the measure was to encourage appropriate parental behaviour with a view to preventing and minimising the negative effects of [ their ] conflictual relationship on the child ’s psycho - physical development ... in that sense it was only a question of creating preconditions for adequate communication between the parents , so that currently there is no open conflict ( but only because the parents avoid it ) . In particular , the parents are observing the visiting schedule . They have made concessions to each other from time to time . However , the parents are still in conflict , they still do not communicate , and the majority of their communication goes through the child or through text messages . It is precisely in this way that they are disregarding [ her ] needs and forcing [ her ] to deal with something with which she should not be dealing at her age ( or at any other age for that matter ) . Both parents think they are doing what is best for their child , while forgetting that their conflict is the major obstacle to the normal psycho - physical development and functioning of their child ... [ The mother ] thinks that the child should be with her and that the wish of the child , who also expresses the wish to be with her , should be respected . [ The father ] thinks that that his role is to protect the child from the mother ’s negative influence and ensure stability for her . Those views are PERSON , but the only question is how much each of them negatively affects the child by fighting for their own position ? For a compromise people need to be ready to partially abandon their position , but they are not ready to do so . In my view , both parents have a good relationship with the child ; they [ both ] try to spend quality time with her . They differ to some extent in their methods and parenting styles ( [ the mother ’s ] is permissive and directed at [ developing ] a friendly relationship with her daughter , which may also be a strategy for ‘ winning’ the child , whereas [ the father ] is more impulsive , with a tendency to give in , and is oriented towards the traditional role of the father , which would not be a problem if the CARDINAL parents would cooperate ... Neither of them disputes that the role of the other parent is also important for the child , but they both find it important that the child lives with them , believing that in that way they would diminish the harmful influence ‘ the other parent has on the child’ . This means that the main problem is unresolved parental conflict , and the parents should probably work on that outside the [ social welfare ] centre . When they are able to talk to each other , and when they realise why and which of their actions are harmful for [ the child ] ( and stem from their personal conflict ) then they will be able to function better . In that regard I think that the supervision measure can not provide a better solution to the problems they have . ”