5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Nova Pazova. 6.  From 1991 until 2001 the applicant lived with M.K. The couple had two children, a daughter, J.G., born on 20 January 1992 and a son, M.G., born on 28 July 1994. 7.  M.G. has a moderate intellectual disability. 8.  By a decision of the Stara Pazova Social Care Centre (“the Social Care Centre”) of 9 January 2001, custody of the children was given to M.K. By the same decision the applicant was given contact with the children every other weekend from 6 p.m. on Friday to 6 p.m. on Sunday and during the first half of the summer and winter school holidays. The decision provided that the applicant had to collect and return the children outside M.K.’s family home. 9.  On 30 June 2005 the Social Care Centre suspended the enforcement of the decision of 9 January 2001 at the applicant’s request, as he intended to assert his parental rights in judicial proceedings. 10.  On 11 August 2005 the applicant applied to the Stara Pazova Municipal Court for sole custody of the children. 11.  On 27 December 2005 the Stara Pazova Municipal Court issued an interim contact order giving the applicant contact with the children every other weekend from 6 p.m. on Friday to 6 p.m. on Sunday and during the first half of the summer and winter school holidays. The order was to remain in force until the final resolution of the custody proceedings. 12.  On 2 February 2006 the interim contact order was upheld by the Sremska Mitrovica District Court (“the District Court”). 13.  On 11 September 2008 the Stara Pazova Municipal Court decided that the applicant’s civil claim had to be considered withdrawn because neither he nor M.K. had given valid reasons for their failure to attend the main hearing that day. On 11 December 2008 the District Court upheld that decision. 14.  On 17 October 2011 the Sremska Mitrovica Basic Court Stara Pazova Judicial Unit (the Stara Pazova Municipal Court having ceased to exist following the 2010 judicial reform – hereinafter “the Sremska Mitrovica Basic Court”) revoked the interim contact order of 27 December 2005 given that the custody proceedings had terminated on 11 December 2008. The applicant was ordered to pay 30,625 dinars (approximately 257 euros (EUR)) to M.K. in legal costs together with statutory interest. That decision became final on 10 November 2011. 15.  On 18 January 2006, at the applicant’s request, the Stara Pazova Municipal Court ordered enforcement of the interim contact order (see paragraph 11 above) by a court bailiff. The enforcement order was upheld by the District Court on 17 March 2006. 16.  On 20 January 2006 a first attempt to enforce the contact order was made. A bailiff went to M.K.’s home, but J.G. refused to see the applicant. M.G. wanted to see him, but M.K. refused to let him go without his sister. 17.  J.G. and M.G. stayed with the applicant for the weekend of 7 to 9 April 2006. 18.  In another attempt to enforce the contact order on 21 April 2006, the bailiff and the applicant went to M.K.’s home. The children’s maternal grandmother Z.K.V. told them that M.K. and the children were away. In later criminal proceedings against M.K. (see paragraph 45 below), it was established that the applicant had not been meant to have contact that weekend as it had been the third weekend in the month. 19.  On 5 May 2006 another attempt was made to enforce the interim order, but M.K. told the bailiff that the children did not want to see the applicant. 20.  On 19 May 2006, in another attempt to enforce the contact order, M.K. informed the bailiff that the children were on a school trip. The applicant, who was also present, requested the assistance of the police at the next enforcement attempt. 21.  On 2, 16 and 23 June, 14 July and 22 September 2006 other attempts to enforce the contact order were made. At every attempt J.G. refused to see the applicant and M.K. did not want to let M.G. go alone. 22.  On 5 July 2006 the Stara Pazova Municipal Court fined M.K. 5,000 dinars for non-compliance with the enforcement order of 18 January 2006 (see paragraph 15 above). 23.  On 27 October 2006 J.G. again refused to see the applicant, despite M.K.’s insistence that she should go. As before, M.K. refused to let M.G. go without his sister. 24.  On 10 November 2006 the enforcement was attempted in the presence of a police officer, the bailiff and the applicant. J.G. refused to see the applicant and M.K. refused to let M.G. go alone. 25.  On 24 November, 8 and 22 December 2006 J.G. again refused to see the applicant, and M.K. refused to let M.G. go alone. Furthermore, on the latter date M.K. threatened to press criminal charges against the bailiff and the applicant. 26.  On 4 April 2007 the Stara Pazova Municipal Court heard J.G. and M.G. in the presence of a child psychologist from the Social Care Centre. The children stated that they did not want to have contact with their father because they were afraid of him. J.G. said that the applicant had yelled at her before and that once, when they had been in a coffee bar together, he had snatched her mobile phone from her hand. Another time, when they had been playing in the swimming pool in their mother’s garden, the applicant had grabbed M.G. and taken him to a coffee bar, threatening not to return him. 27.  On 11 September 2008 the custody proceedings were terminated because the applicant and M.K. failed to attend the main hearing without valid reasons (see paragraph 13 above). 28.  On 3 February 2009 the Stara Pazova Municipal Court decided to obtain an opinion and recommendation from the Social Care Centre concerning the continuation of the enforcement proceedings and the possible harm it might have on the children’s development. 29.  In its opinion of 30 March 2009 the Social Care Centre reported that the relationship difficulties between the applicant and M.K. had persisted after their separation and had transformed into arguments over parental rights. Moreover, J.G. had developed strong resistance to her father. She was ashamed and afraid of him because of his behaviour during the time the family had lived together. In addition, M.G. did not want to see the applicant without his sister. The Social Care Centre further reported that M.K. was unable to give support to her children in order to overcome the difficulties in maintaining contact with their father. She claimed that she had not forbidden the children from having contact with him, but was unable to influence her daughter’s opinion. However, M.K. had never expressed the desire to attend counselling or any other specialist therapy, even though it had been suggested several times. 30.  In the past three years the applicant had not once seen J.G., but submitted that he had occasionally met with M.G. at his school during the recess. In such circumstances he had been unable to exercise his parental rights and had had no other way of maintaining contact with his children. The absence of contact had made it impossible for him to create a good interaction with his children. The opinion concluded that the continuation of the enforcement proceedings would put additional pressure on the children and create even greater resistance, particularly in J.G. It suggested the use of other methods provided for by law to create the conditions to enable the father to exercise his parental rights. 31.  On 14 August 2009 the Stara Pazova Municipal Court scheduled a meeting between the applicant and the children for 4 September 2009 at M.K.’s home in the presence of a bailiff and social workers. 32.  On 4 September 2009, in the presence of a psychologist and a social worker, a bailiff and the applicant, J.G. and M.G., both visibly distressed, stated that they did not want to see the applicant. 33.  On 25 February 2011 the Sremska Mitrovica Basic Court (see paragraph 14 above) held a hearing at which M.K., J.G., M.G. and the applicant were heard separately. A psychologist and a social worker from the Social Care Centre were also present. The court noted that shortly before the hearing an ambulance had had to be requested for M.G., who had been displaying signs of an anxiety attack. At the hearing J.G. and M.G. stated that they did not want to have contact with their father and that he was violent towards them. J.G. said, in particular, that the relationship with her father and his attempts at maintaining contact had affected her psychologically (she was afraid to go outside the home alone at night). She said further that the applicant exerted a psychological pressure on M.G. After meeting his father M.G.’s behaviour always changed and he would say offensive things to his mother and grandmother. M.K. stated that she had not obstructed the enforcement of the contact order – the children had not wanted to see the applicant. The social worker stated that at the court’s request the Social Care Centre would submit a proposal on the possibility of maintaining contact between the applicant and M.G., who was still a minor. The applicant insisted on continuation of the enforcement. 34.  On 1 March 2011 the Sremska Mitrovica Basic Court ordered the Social Care Centre to hear the applicant, M.K. and M.G. separately concerning the possibility of maintaining contact between the applicant and M.G. and to prepare an opinion on M.G.’s physical and mental health and development. In particular, the court referred to M.G.’s statements given at the hearing of 25 February 2011 (see paragraph 33 above) and the fact that he had suffered an anxiety attack before that hearing. While the applicant, as a parent, had the right to maintain contact with his child, M.G.’s wishes, needs and best interests had to be taken into account. In a situation where M.G. refused to see his father, the court considered that it was in everyone’s interests to realise the contact gradually with the assistance of the Social Care Centre until the conditions for uninterrupted enforcement of the contact order were created. 35.  On 26 May 2011 the Social Care Centre submitted its opinion to the Sremska Mitrovica Basic Court. It stated that M.G. had a moderate intellectual disability and needed help with dressing, personal hygiene and feeding himself. He was very close to his mother and sister, and felt loved and accepted by them. M.K. stated that she was not preventing M.G. from seeing his father, but feared for his health. She believed that M.G. was afraid of his father because of two previous incidents. According to M.K., on one occasion the applicant had grabbed M.G. from their garden; another time he had allegedly forced open M.G.’s mouth to check his teeth. The opinion stressed, however, that according to the information submitted by M.G.’s school, he had occasionally met his father at school. The meetings had always been warm and affectionate and M.G. had never displayed any signs of fear or anxiety. According to the opinion, the applicant was very keen to maintain contact with his children and cooperate with the Social Care Centre. It was suggested that a meeting be organised between M.G. and the applicant at the Social Care Centre in the presence of the social workers. 36.  On an unspecified date thereafter, the applicant, M.K. and the social workers agreed that the meetings between the applicant and M.G. would be held every Monday at 11 a.m. M.K. was to take M.G. to the Social Care Centre. The first meeting was scheduled for 2 June 2011. 37.  On 31 May 2011 the children’s maternal grandmother Z.K.V. informed the Social Care Centre that M.G. was in Greece with his mother. 38.  A further meeting was scheduled for 13 June 2011. 39.  On 13 June 2011 the applicant met with M.G. at the Social Care Centre in the presence of the social workers. The meeting lasted one hour and passed pleasantly. M.G. talked and laughed with his father. Later that day M.K. informed the Social Care Centre that M.G. had been upset after the meeting so she had had to call an ambulance. This was confirmed by a doctor on duty at the time. 40.  The next meeting, scheduled for 20 June 2011, was cancelled because M.K. informed the Social Care Centre that she was unwell and had no one to take M.G. to the meeting. Several minutes later Z.K.V. called the Social Care Centre and was verbally aggressive towards a person dealing with the case. After being informed that the meeting had been cancelled, Z.K.V. and J.G. took M.G. to the centre and were verbally aggressive towards the social workers present. M.G. was frightened and confused. 41.  The next meeting was scheduled for 27 June 2011. There is no information in the case file as to whether or not it was held. 42.  On 28 June 2011 the Social Care Centre created a meeting schedule for July and August 2011. The applicant was to see M.G. every Monday between 11 a.m. and 12 noon at the Social Care Centre. It would appear that those meetings were held without any problems. 43.  On 15 November 2011 the Sremska Mitrovica Basic Court terminated the enforcement proceedings initiated on 18 January 2006 (see paragraph 15 above). The applicant was ordered to pay 28,125 dinars (approximately EUR 236) to M.K. in legal costs. 44.  On 24 December 2015 the Stara Pazova Basic Court (which had been re-established and renamed in the 2014 judicial reform; see paragraph 14 above), at M.K.’s request, ordered enforcement of the decision of 15 November 2011. In addition to the legal costs ordered by that decision, the applicant was ordered to pay enforcement costs of 10,225 dinars (approximately EUR 85), to be deducted from his disability pension. On 5 April 2016 the appeals chamber of the Stara Pazova Basic Court upheld the decision of 24 December 2015. 45.  On 12 October 2007 the Stara Pazova Municipal Court found M.K. guilty of non-compliance with the interim contact order and ordered her to pay sixty day-fines of 500 dinars (approximately EUR 6.40) each. The court held that M.K. had obstructed the enforcement of the interim contact order of 27 December 2005 by preventing M.G. from seeing his father without J.G. She had thus prevented the applicant from having contact with his son, except on one occasion when he had not had the right to visit him (see paragraph 18 above). The court considered that M.K. had not prevented J.G. from seeing the applicant and that J.G.’s resistance was due to her personal conflict with him. The applicant was instructed to submit his claim for damages in civil proceedings. 46.  On 29 July 2008 the Sremska Mitrovica District Court upheld the judgment of 12 October 2007 and it became final. 47.  On 28 March 2013 the Sremska Mitrovica Basic Court acquitted M.K. and Z.K.V. of charges of non-compliance with the interim contact order concerning the incident of 20 June 2011 (see paragraph 40 above).