Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2022-10-25; IV Cp 1502/2022
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2022:IV.CP.1502.2022
Date: 2022-10-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82022SI1025(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the restriction of parental care and the placement of a child in institutional care.
The child, A. A., and his father (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) are Russian nationals who moved to Slovenia in 2019. After a report from the child’s school indicating physical abuse, the Center za socialno delo (CSD) sought an emergency removal. The Court of First Instance granted the request pursuant to Articles 167 and 168 of the DZ (1) and initially placed the child in a crisis centre, later in the Vzgojni dom (educational institution, hereinafter ‘VD’). The court also restricted the defendant’s parental care, including a ban on crossing the Slovenian state border with the child, placed the child under partial guardianship, and regulated contact with the father. Jurisdiction was based on Article 8 of the new Brussels II Regulation (2), as the child’s habitual residence was in Slovenia.
The Court of First Instance eventually issued a final decision under Article 174 of the DZ, finding that a milder measure could not eliminate the child’s serious endangerment and that placement in VD remained necessary. It relied heavily on the findings of the expert in child and adolescent psychiatry, who determined that the child has significant psychosocial difficulties: mixed behavioural and emotional disorders and an attention and activity disorder. Reports from the VD, CSD and other institutions indicated persistent problems in behaviour, aggression, impulse control and social functioning, requiring continuous structured support that the father was unable to provide.
The defendant appealed, arguing that earlier allegations of abuse had been disproved in criminal proceedings, that the expert opinion was outdated and incomplete, and that he could offer a safe domestic environment and appropriate therapy. He further argued that the restrictions on movement, guardianship arrangements, and order on maintenance were unjustified and that he did not intend to leave Slovenia.
The Court of Appeal upheld the factual findings of the Court of First Instance. It stressed that the child’s continued placement in VD was not based solely on past violence but primarily on the child’s present and serious psychosocial difficulties. The expert opinion was comprehensive and based on extensive documentation and personal interviews. Improvements in the child’s functioning occurred precisely because of the structured environment in VD. The father’s assertions that he could independently provide specialised care were unsubstantiated and contradicted by previous failures to ensure basic administrative matters, such as health insurance.
The Court of Appeal held that a milder measure—such as supervision of parental care—would not sufficiently safeguard the child’s health and development. The ban on crossing the state border was justified, particularly given the father’s prior breach of a temporary order and statements indicating possible relocation. In line with Article 171(4) of the DZ, the CSD was properly appointed as a partial guardian, authorised to grant cross-border travel consent within the administrative procedure.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeals and confirmed the final decision and the temporary order. It amended only the part of the decision relating to the expert’s remuneration.
(1) Družinski zakonik (Family Code).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.