FIFTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF FURMAN v. SLOVENIA AND AUSTRIA
 
(Application no. 16608/09)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
5 February 2015
 
 
 
FINAL
 
05/05/2015
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Furman v. Slovenia and Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Mark Villiger, President,
 Boštjan M. Zupančič,
 Elisabeth Steiner,
 Ganna Yudkivska,
 Vincent A. De Gaetano,
 André Potocki,
 Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 January 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 16608/09) against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Slovenian national, Mr Andrej Furman (“the applicant”), on 23 March 2009. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr P. Čeh, a lawyer practising in Maribor. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs B. Jovin Hrastnik, State Attorney. The Austrian Government were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been unable to enjoy family life with his daughter on account of the lack of diligence on the part of the Slovenian and Austrian authorities in regulating and enforcing contact between them. 4. On 3 July 2012 the application was communicated to the Governments. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Maribor. From 1991 to 1997 he lived with M.P. in an extramarital relationship. On 14 December 1993 the latter gave birth to their daughter, P. 6. In 1997 the applicant and M.P. separated and, with the assistance of the Maribor Social Work Centre (hereinafter “the Centre”), concluded an agreement determining the amount of child maintenance to be paid by the applicant for his daughter. Another agreement was concluded on 23 February 1998 setting up a provisional contact schedule governing the applicant’s contact with P. for the period from 24 February to 13 April 1998. A. Contact proceedings before the Slovenian authorities and the enforcement of the relevant decisions
7. Having been unable to come to an agreement with M.P. as to a more permanent contact schedule, on 24 February 1998 the applicant asked the Centre to issue an order determining his contact rights. He sought contact with P. every Tuesday afternoon, every second Thursday afternoon, every other weekend, one week during the winter holiday and one month during the summer holiday. 8. It appears that, as of 13 April 1998, M.P. stopped letting the applicant have contact with P. 9. The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 18 June 1998 and subsequently adjourned at the request of M.P., who informed the Centre that she was taking holiday during the period in question. 10. On 14 June 1998 M.P. sent another letter to the Centre informing them that she would be living abroad in the period between 1 July 1998 and 31 August 1999 for the purposes of her doctoral studies. She requested that the contact proceedings be suspended during that period. 11. Further to the applicant’s objection to M.P.’s request for the suspension of the proceedings, the Centre’s social workers paid three visits to M.P.’s address in Maribor in order to establish whether she was still living in Slovenia. However, M.P. was not found at home on either occasion. 12. On 30 July 1998 the Centre sent a request to M.P.’s employer, Maribor University, to provide the address of her foreign residence. 13. On 26 August 1998 the applicant sought an interim order granting him contact with P. 14. On 4 September 1998 the Centre received a reply from Maribor University stating that M.P. was studying in Graz, Austria, but that they were unaware of her address. However, the university offered to serve M.P. with the summons to attend a hearing. The Centre scheduled a hearing for 22 October 1998, but the university was unable to reach M.P. and the hearing was adjourned. 15. On 29 October 1998 the Centre issued an interim order setting up a provisional contact schedule between the applicant and P. According to the order, the applicant was to have contact with P. once a month and for a week during both the winter and summer holidays. The applicant was supposed to pick up his daughter at M.P.’s permanent address in Maribor and bring her back to the same address. 16. Another hearing was scheduled for 10 December 1998 and subsequently adjourned, as the university was again unable to serve M.P. with the summons. 17. On 12 January 1999 Maribor University provided the Centre with the address of the Austrian university where M.P. was studying. The Centre thus sent the interim order of 29 October 1998 and a summons for a hearing scheduled for 11 February 1999 to M.P. at the address of that institution. 18. On 24 February 1999 M.P. appealed against the interim order of 29 October 1998, arguing that the provisional contact schedule could not be implemented, as she and her daughter were temporarily living in Graz, Austria. 19. On 1 March 1999 the Centre rejected M.P.’s appeal as out of time, whereupon she appealed to the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs (hereinafter “the Ministry”). 20. On 28 April and 18 June 1999 the Centre submitted the applicant’s requests for the enforcement of the interim order to the Maribor Administrative Unit. On 24 August 1999 the requests were granted; however, on 16 September 1999 M.P. appealed, claiming that the decision had not been correctly served on her. She also objected to the contents of the interim order. 21. On 27 September 1999 the Ministry upheld M.P.’s appeal against the interim order, quashed the order and remitted the issue of the provisional contact schedule for a fresh examination by the Centre. The Ministry found that the service of the interim order and the summons to the hearing of 11 February 1999 had not been effected in accordance with the rules of administrative procedure. The Ministry pointed out that in the event that a party was absent or lived abroad, he or she had to be invited to appoint a representative authorised to receive his or her official mail.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: violation