5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Vinkovci. 6.  On 19 September 1998 the applicant married D.M., who gave birth to their son on 17 April 2001. The family lived together in Sesvete until 2007, when the applicant moved to Vukovar for work-related reasons. 7.  On 29 January 2008 D.M. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Sesvete Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sesvetama), seeking divorce, custody of their son and maintenance for the child. She submitted, inter alia, that their marital union had de facto ended in March 2007 when the applicant had moved to Vukovar. 8.  On 27 March 2008 D.M. asked the court to issue an interim custody and contact order and grant her temporary custody of the child until the adoption of the final judgment. The applicant requested that he be granted temporary custody. 9.  In its report to the Municipal Court of 4 June 2008 issued as part of the mandatory mediation procedure, the Sesvete social welfare centre established that the relationship between the parents had been deeply and permanently strained; communication between them was poor and they had difficulties agreeing on parental care. The report also stated that the applicant’s contacts with his son were problematic. 10.  In the course of the divorce proceedings, the court heard a number of experts, including, on 30 June 2008, a psychologist from the Sesvete social welfare centre, who stressed that the child needed contact with his father in order to maintain an emotional bond with him. 11.  On 3 July 2008 the Sesvete Municipal Court issued a first interim custody and contact order, awarding temporary custody to the mother and contact rights to the applicant. Following an appeal lodged by D.M., that decision was quashed by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 28 October 2008. 12.  Meanwhile, on 30 September 2008 by a partial judgment the Sesvete Municipal Court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and D.M., but the proceedings continued as regards the remaining issues of custody, contact rights and child maintenance, on which the court decided to obtain an expert opinion from the Zagreb Child Protection Clinic (Poliklinika za zaštitu djece grada Zagreba). 13.  In the resumed proceedings, on 20 January 2009 the Zagreb Child Protection Clinic carried out an assessment of the applicant, D.M. and their son. It found that the child was depressed about his parents’ separation and burdened with their strained relationship, which put him in a loyalty conflict. It therefore recommended that the parents undergo counselling and that the child receive supportive psychotherapy. 14.  On 20 March 2009 the Municipal Court issued a second interim custody and contact order, granting the applicant contact rights one day per week, every second weekend, every second public holiday and half of the school holidays. That decision was again quashed on D.M.’s appeal and the case was remitted. 15.  On 15 October 2009 the Municipal Court issued a third interim contact order, awarding the applicant contact rights to be exercised two hours every Wednesday, every second weekend and every second public holiday. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:
“... On the basis of the case-file, the first-instance court concludes that meetings between the father and the son have thus far not been taking place in a manner corresponding to the best interest of the child, because the father had been able to see the son very rarely, and those rare occasions on Wednesdays had been limited to fifteen minutes after school ...
... The lack of co-operation by the parents concerning the exercise of their parental rights, the mother’s firm attitude and her unwillingness to co-operate with [the applicant] must not run counter to the child’s interests ...
Given that so far the mother has not been co-operative as regards the time scheduled for father-son meetings once a week, it was in the interest of the child to supplement the previous decision ...” 16.  An appeal lodged by D.M. against that order was dismissed. 17.  In January 2011, at the request of the Sesvete Social Welfare Centre, the court ordered an expert assessment of the parties, taking into account the growing resistance of the child to contacts with his father. D.M. and the child refused to undertake the court-ordered assessment. 18.  On 28 September 2012 the Sesvete Municipal Court held a hearing at which the child said that he wanted to live with his mother. 19.  On 12 October 2012 the Sesvete Municipal Court rendered a judgment awarding custody rights to the mother and contact rights to the applicant. It also ordered the applicant to pay 2,000 kunas (HRK) per month for child maintenance. The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows:
“The child is eleven and a half years old and, notwithstanding the significance of the mother’s influence on his development (concerning the father’s allegations of manipulation), he leaves the impression of a boy standing firmly behind his beliefs and attitudes, who expresses his will openly and clearly ...
The child wishes to live with his mother and to spend a maximum of two hours on Saturdays with his father, without supervision, as his weekly schedule is full of school and music assignments. He uses the court to ask his parents to do everything they can in order to bring the court proceedings to an end.
... [the Vinkovci social welfare centre] suggested father-son meetings every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. ... for seven days during the winter holidays, fifteen days during the summer holidays and on alternate public holidays.
... [the Vinkovci social welfare centre’s supervising officer from 15 July 2010 to 15 July 2011] saw the child once on the doorstep. He refused to talk to the father or to her, and showed resistance towards them. [The Vinkovci social welfare centre’s supervising officer since 15 February 2012] said that a first meeting had been held, and there had been meetings after that, but only partially and not in line with the court’s decision. [The supervising officer also said] that the boy had been resisting the meetings, so another date had been scheduled, but the next meeting again had not taken place. The boy had asked his father to terminate the lawsuits against his mother, and said that the father would then be able to see him ...
In an essay which the child wrote in the third grade, one can detect a firm connection with his mother, the heavy burden of the pending court proceedings (enforcement proceedings, criminal proceedings, present case) and the child’s feeling that his father has left his mother and does not respect the love he feels for her. He is also burdened with the feeling that he ‘must spend time with the father’ when he does not want to and the feeling that his father does not understand him and did not understand him earlier. Finally, he is sad about the fact that his father has a new family ...
In the present case the child has had a stronger emotional bond with his mother since birth and shows resistance to his father. He also shows a significant level of resistance towards the set schedule of meetings, and his parents despite everything fail to reach the minimum level of co-operation and dialogue in the interests of their child. With the passage of time, they are drifting apart and argue more and more, which is evident from the enforcement proceedings and the supervision of meetings, which negatively influence their child, deprived of the freedom of choice.
The joint parental care necessary for the healthy, proper and successful development and upbringing of every child is lacking in the present case. No court decision can replace a good agreement between the parents on joint care. Such a decision in the present case is being enforced imperatively on the child, but ultimately protects his ‘right to both parents’.
... in order that a father-son emotional bond can be established and developed, and taking into account the child’s wishes and his free time, the court decides to start with Saturday meetings for two hours ... so that the child can see that the court has respected his ability to independently express the wish to spend more or less time with the father, and afterwards every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. [as suggested by the Vinkovci Social Welfare Centre] ...
Having regard to the events and the length of these proceedings, the Centre’s proposal of 28 September 2012 that the court order the parents and the child to undergo an assessment at the Zagreb Child Protection Clinic, after which the Centre would give its final opinion, was dismissed, as there are no reasons for the court to delay its decision after more than four years, given that the Vinkovci Social Welfare Centre has issued its recommendation and that the decisions in the proceedings are subject to change within the meaning of section 102 of the Family Act.” 20.  Both parties lodged appeals against that judgment, which were dismissed by the second-instance court. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was also dismissed. 21.  Meanwhile, on 12 February 2010 the applicant sought enforcement of the third interim order of the Sesvete Municipal Court of 15 October 2009 (see paragraph 15 above). He asked the court to order D.M. to enable him to have contacts with his son or to face a HRK 5,000 fine. If she failed to comply with the court order, the applicant suggested that the court enforcement officer, the police and the representatives of the social welfare centre intervene at the scene. 22.  On the same day the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima) issued an enforcement order, setting an eight-day time-limit for D.M. to comply with the third interim order or face a HRK 5,000 fine. Following an appeal lodged by D.M., on 21 May 2010 the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) quashed the enforcement order and remitted the case, finding that the first-instance court had to seek an opinion from the relevant social welfare centre. 23.  On 5 October 2010 the Vinkovci social welfare centre delivered a report in which it recommended that the enforcement proceedings be completed because it was in the best interests of the child to establish regular contacts with his father. 24.  On 11 October 2010 the Vinkovci Municipal Court issued a fresh enforcement order. An appeal lodged by D.M. against that order was dismissed. 25.  On 21 January 2011 the Vinkovci Municipal Court fined D.M. HRK 5,000 for non-compliance with the Sesvete Municipal Court’s interim custody and contact order. She was also ordered to enable the applicant to exercise his contact rights within eight days, failing which she would face a further HRK 7,000 fine. D.M. appealed. 26.  On 30 May, 30 June and 25 July 2011 the applicant informed the Municipal Court that he had not had any contact with his son and again requested that the police and the social welfare centre intervene. 27.  On 3 August 2011 the Vinkovci Municipal Court converted the fine imposed on D.M. into twenty-eight days’ imprisonment, fined her an additional HRK 7,000 and ordered her to allow the applicant to exercise his contact rights within eight days or face a further HRK 10,000 fine. An appeal lodged by D.M. against that decision was dismissed. 28.  On 23 April 2012 the applicant informed the Vinkovci Municipal Court that he still had no contact with his son. 29.  The enforcement proceedings were ultimately discontinued because the applicant had not amended his application for enforcement in accordance with the new decision on contact rights of 12 October 2012 (see paragraph 19 above). 30.  On 27 August 2013 the applicant sought enforcement of the contact arrangements as set out in the Sesvete Municipal Court’s final judgment of 12 October 2012 (see paragraph 19 above). 31.  On 30 October 2013 the Vinkovci Municipal Court held a hearing, at which D.M. claimed that she had not prevented the applicant from seeing his son, but that the child did not want to see his father. 32.  In February 2014 the Vinkovci Municipal Court requested the Vinkovci social welfare centre to appoint a special guardian for the child, which it did. On 14 April 2014 the child’s special guardian stated that he agreed with the enforcement request. Given the suggestive influence and manipulative behaviour of the mother, it was the mother’s wish, and not the wish of the child, not to have contacts with the father. 33.  In an enforcement order of 9 February 2015 the Vinkovci Municipal Court ordered D.M. to allow the applicant contacts with his son as established in the final court judgment of 12 October 2012, failing which she would be fined HRK 5,000. That decision was upheld on appeal. 34.  In February 2016 the applicant informed the court that meetings with his son were still not taking place and on 24 February 2016 the court imposed another fine on D.M., which was subsequently quashed by the second-instance court. 35.  According to the available information, the enforcement proceedings appear to be still ongoing. 36.  Meanwhile, on 9 June 2011 the applicant brought criminal charges against D.M. before the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru) for obstruction of child-protection measures laid down in Article 215 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 47 below). 37.  During those proceedings, on 11 October 2012 the court heard the applicant’s son, who stated that he did not wish to have contacts with the applicant and that this attitude had not been induced by his mother. A forensic psychologist concluded that the child’s desire to break ties with the father should be seen in the context of extremely suggestive behaviour and manipulation by his mother and that the cessation of contact with his father did not contribute to the child’s welfare. 38.  On 16 May 2013 the Vukovar Municipal Court found D.M. guilty as charged and judicially admonished her (sudska opomena – see paragraph 47 below). The applicant was instructed to pursue his civil claim for damages in separate civil proceedings. Appeals lodged by both parties were dismissed. 39.  On 13 November 2013 the Vukovar State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru) indicted D.M. for non‑implementation of decisions for the protection of child welfare, in particular for obstructing the enforcement of the applicant’s contact rights pursuant to the final court judgment of 12 October 2012 (see paragraph 19 above). 40.  On 30 September 2018 the Vukovar Municipal Court sentenced D.M. as charged to one year’s imprisonment suspended for two years (uvjetna osuda). 41.  On 13 October 2008 the Sesvete social welfare centre concluded that the Begović family needed professional assistance and referred them to the Zagreb Child Protection Clinic for assessment and possible treatment. In its letter, the centre stressed that contacts between the applicant and his son were difficult because the mother was always present. 42.  On 10 March 2009, the social welfare centre adopted a child‑protection measure provided for in section 109 of the Family Act (see paragraph 46 below). In particular, it issued a warning to the applicant and D.M. about mistakes leading to shortcomings in the care and upbringing of their son, and cautioning them about their inadequate cooperation, which made contacts between the applicant and his son difficult. It referred them to counselling and indicated that it would undertake further child-protection measures if they failed to attend.  Between March and July 2009 the applicant and D.M. attended counselling sessions. 43.  On 1 July 2010, relying on section 110 of the Family Act, the centre imposed on the applicant and D.M. the child-protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority (nadzor nad izvršavanjem roditeljske skrbi) for a period of one year. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:
“After their separation the parents did not establish adequate communication regarding [the exercise of their parental authority] which would have enabled both parents to participate adequately in the child’s life. The fact is that meetings between the son and the father are not taking place despite the final judicial decision. Treatment in [various institutions], as well as treatment by the psychologist [I.P.], yielded no results.
...
Given that in the instant case one of the basic rights of the child provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the legislation in force is jeopardised, it was necessary to offer the parents professional assistance in establishing an adequate relationship by [imposing] the [child protection] measure of supervision of contacts between the son and the father so as to enable both parents to participate in [the child’s] upbringing.
...
... [T]he child’s parents live separately, the father in Zagreb and the mother in Vinkovci. [Therefore,] because of the distance [between the two towns] and work obligations, and [given] the [resultant] impossibility of implementing the court’s decision in the part concerning contacts between the son and the father during the week owing to changed circumstances, those [contacts] will not be covered by the supervision of contacts between the son and the father.” 44.  On 25 January 2012 the centre again imposed the child-protection measure of supervising the exercise of parental authority for a further year. It found that meetings between the applicant and his son were still not taking place, that the applicant did not participate in his son’s life and that the cooperation between the parents had stopped completely. 45.  In the final report on another child protection measure of supervising the exercise of parental authority, issued for the period between July 2015 and June 2016, the social worker concluded that the measure had produced no results as the contacts between the applicant and his son were still not taking place.