SECOND SECTION
CASE OF Q AND R v. SLOVENIA
(Application no. 19938/20)
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Unreasonable length of proceedings, lasting six years and ongoing, for grandparent requesting foster care of children left without parental care • Failures of first instance court leading to remittal and inadequate provision of experts or excessive expert workload, resulting in significant delays • Restrictions necessitated by Covid-19 not absolving State of responsibility, given option of urgent procedure and need for special diligence
Art 8 • Family life • Court’s refusal to hear very young children represented by social services and not by special guardian • Decision based on expert opinion and not affecting applicants’ position in the proceedings • Court’s refusal to examine one of the experts not unreasonable

 
STRASBOURG
8 February 2022
 
FINAL
 
20/06/2022
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Q and R v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Branko Lubarda,
 Pauliine Koskelo,
 Marko Bošnjak,
 Saadet Yüksel, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 19938/20) 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 two Slovenian nationals, Ms Q and Mr R (“the applicants”), on 28 April 2020;
the decision to give notice to the Slovenian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the foster care permission proceedings and the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about the alleged failure to hear the views of the applicants’ grandchildren either directly or through a special guardian and to examine expert D.T. in the contact proceedings and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the length of proceedings in which the first applicant requested a foster care permission with respect to her grandchildren, who had been left without parental care. It also concerns an alleged failure of the domestic courts to hear the views of the applicants’ grandchildren either directly or through a special guardian and to examine in the contact proceedings the expert who had given his opinion in the foster care permission proceedings. THE FACTS
2. The applicants were represented by Mr V. Cugmas, a lawyer practising in Slovenske Konjice. 3. The Government were represented by their Agents, Mrs T. Mihelič Žitko and A. Grum, State Attorneys. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. THE BACKGROUND
5. The applicants are grandmother and grandfather, respectively, of W and Z. W’s and Z’s mother (the applicants’ daughter) was killed in December 2015. Their father, who was accused of killing the mother, was arrested and is in prison. W and Z were five and three years old at the time of these events. 6. Following the mother’s death, W and Z stayed with the applicants until they were removed by the welfare authorities (see paragraph 9 below). 7. On 25 January 2016, in order to be able to foster her grandchildren, the first applicant submitted an application for a foster care permission with the S.G. Social Work Centre (hereinafter “the S.G. Centre”), which had jurisdiction considering the first applicant’s residence. 8. On 17 February 2016 the S.G. Centre, after holding interviews with the applicants, issued a report in which it found the first applicant not to be the most suitable candidate for fostering W and Z. The final decision was later taken by the Ministry for Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (hereinafter “the Ministry”, see paragraph 14 below). 9. On 30 March 2016 the V. Social Work Centre (hereinafter “the V. Centre”), which had territorial jurisdiction over the children, took the children from their nursery and placed them with an unrelated foster family located in another region, without the applicants’ knowledge. The removal of the children from the applicants received wide media coverage and was the subject of tense public and political debate. 10. The first applicant challenged the removal in domestic proceedings. In these proceedings the Supreme Court (decision of 19 October 2016) noted that the V. Centre’s removal of the children had been unlawful. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim to have the children returned to her because the issue of the placement of the children was to be resolved by the courts in the foster care permission proceedings instituted by her. The issue as to whether the children should have been returned to the applicants following the aforementioned Supreme Court’s decision was the subject of the Court’s inadmissibility decision in Q v. Slovenia (dec.) [Committee], no. 14401/17, 10 April 2018. 11. In July 2017 the first applicant initiated a private prosecution against several workers of the V. Centre and the S.G. Centre in relation to the removal of W and Z and the conduct of the proceedings concerning the application for a foster care permission. According to the latest information, the criminal proceedings are still pending. 12. The identity of the foster parent and other members of her family as well as her address were not revealed to the applicants and her name and address were not mentioned in the court decisions. The foster parent has been communicating with the applicants via the welfare authorities. PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A FOSTER CARE PERMISSIONInitial proceedings

13. On 1 March 2016 an expert group at the V. Centre adopted an opinion to the effect that it would not be in W’s and Z’s interest to be fostered by the first applicant. On 5 April 2016 the first applicant requested that the Ministry promptly (within seven days) decide on her application for a foster care permission. 14. On 11 April 2016 the V. Centre issued an assessment report. This report as well as the S.G. Centre’s report (see paragraph 8 above) were submitted to the Ministry. The latter, relying on these reports, dismissed the first applicant’s application for a foster care permission on the same day. 15. On 22 April 2016 the first applicant challenged this decision before the Administrative Court. 16. On 2 November 2016 the first applicant requested that W and Z participate in the proceedings. The children were initially represented in the proceedings by A.G., who acted as their guardian. On 20 March 2017, relying on section 409 of the Contentious Civil Procedure Act (see paragraph 53 below), the first applicant requested that a special representative, for situations where there was a conflict of interest between the person otherwise acting as a guardian and the children, be appointed to protect the interests of the children. This was rejected by the domestic court on 12 July 2017. The court found no conflict of interest and noted that the differences in the parties’ opinions were not sufficient to warrant the appointment of a special representative. In the meantime, on 7 April 2017, the V. Centre terminated the appointment of A.G. at her request and appointed itself as the guardian of W and Z (skrbnik, see paragraph 51 below). 17. The Administrative Court held a hearing on 8 March 2017. It appointed experts M.Ž.T. and V.S. with a view to preparing an expert opinion on whether the first applicant’s fostering of her grandchildren would be in their best interests. Both experts informed the court that they would need several months to prepare the reports as they were busy with other tasks. Consequently, on 30 March 2017, the court appointed expert T.R. to provide an expert opinion, but he too informed the court, on 13 April 2017, that he was overloaded with other work. Subsequently, on 14 April 2017, the court appointed an expert in clinical psychology – D.T. – and asked him to produce an expert opinion by 31 July 2017. It later extended the deadline to 10 September 2017. 18. D.T., who had conducted interviews with, inter alios, W and Z and the applicants, submitted his report on 3 October 2017. He found that while the first applicant had been capable of taking care of her grandchildren occasionally, she was not equipped for the demanding and comprehensive long-term care of W and Z, both of whom suffered from certain cognitive and/or behavioural issues and needed special care. He concluded that foster care by the first applicant would therefore not be in the best interests of W and Z, who had in the meantime integrated well into the foster family. However, he also found that it would be beneficial for W and Z to maintain emotional ties with the applicants and other relatives and that the applicants were able to play an active role as grandparents. D.T. also noted in his report that the competent authorities were in a position to help overcome the obstacles in communication between the foster parents and the applicants and that it should be made possible for W and Z to visit the applicants and for the latter to visit the children at their respective homes. He concluded that W and Z needed at least occasional contact with the applicants. Following the first applicant’s reply to D.T.’s report concerning, inter alia, use of a particular assessment method, D.T. submitted an additional opinion on 19 November 2017. 19. During the proceedings the first applicant lodged several pleadings, in some of which she urged the court to expedite the proceedings. She also requested an interim measure to allow W and Z to live with her. This request as well as a subsequent appeal were rejected. 20. On 10 January 2018 the Administrative Court held a second hearing and dismissed the first applicant’s claim, relying largely on the findings of D.T. 21. On 15 February 2018 the first applicant, following an erroneous instruction in the judgment, lodged an appeal. This was rejected, as no appeal lay against the Administrative Court’s decision. She subsequently, on 25 April 2018, lodged a timely request for leave to appeal which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20 June 2018. 22. On 27 July 2018 the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court informed her that her case would be treated with priority. 23. On 23 May 2019 the Constitutional Court appointed A.R. (an advocate) as a special guardian (kolizijski skrbnik) for W and Z, relying on section 269 (2) of the Family Code (see paragraph 52 below). The Constitutional Court noted that the V. Centre had exercised public powers for protecting W’s and Z’s interests at the earlier stage of the proceedings and there was therefore a possible conflict between its interests and those of the children. 24. On 12 September 2019 the Constitutional Court issued a decision no. Up-1099/18, quashing the Administrative Court’s judgment and remitting the case to it for re-examination. It found that – in view of the public powers exercised by the V. Centre in the matter under consideration and the opinion it had provided to the effect that the first applicant had not been suitable for fostering W and Z – it was necessary to appoint an independent and impartial guardian. It instructed the Administrative Court to appoint a special guardian in the proceedings in which the case would be re-examined. The Constitutional Court further found that the parties should have an opportunity to orally examine D.T. at a hearing. Proceedings following the remittal of the case
25. On 20 November 2019 the Administrative Court appointed advocate A.R. as a special guardian of W’s and Z’s interests, in order to ensure that their opinion be heard in the proceedings, as instructed by the Constitutional Court. 26. On 20 May 2020 the Administrative Court appointed the Expert Opinions Committee of the Faculty of Medicine in Ljubljana (hereinafter “the expert committee”) to produce an expert opinion on the first applicant’s suitability to carry out foster care of W and Z and as to whether this would be in their best interests. It requested that W, Z and the first applicant be examined by the experts. The expert committee appointed two experts, M.R.M. and B.Z., and repeatedly asked the Administrative Court to extend the deadline to prepare the requested opinions due to, inter alia, the complexity of the case and the situation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. On the last occasion, the court extended the deadline to 30 December 2020. On 22 November 2020 the first applicant asked for her appointment with the experts scheduled for 25 November 2020 to be postponed due to the death of her brother. On 6 and 15 January 2021 the court urged the experts to submit their reports. In reply, M.R.M. explained that the report was being finalised and that its preparation was delayed because of the epidemiological situation. 27. On 20 October 2020, the first applicant lodged a supervisory appeal due to the delays in the proceedings. She argued, among other things, that the expert committee clearly did not have experts who could provide a reliable opinion promptly and that certain other experts should be appointed instead. On 9 November 2020 the president of the Administrative Court dismissed it, finding that there existed the following objective reasons for the delays. Firstly, there was an increase in the number of cases and the proceedings concerning a foster care permission were not considered to be urgent under the applicable legislation. Secondly, the case was complex and the file extensive. Thirdly, the work of the courts and the experts was affected by the Covid-19 related measures. 28. The first applicant consequently lodged another acceleratory remedy – a motion for a deadline. Her motion was dismissed by the president of the Supreme Court on 1 December 2020. He essentially endorsed the reasons provided by the president of the Administrative Court (see paragraph 27 above) and noted that in view of the relevant legislation the case could be treated with priority if its outcome was particularly important for the parties. In his view, there was no need for his intervention as the judge rapporteur at the first-instance court dealing with the matter recognised the importance of the case. 29. In the meantime, the first applicant requested that D.T.’s report be disregarded because of his alleged lack of objectivity. She also requested that the expert committee, including M.R.M. and B.Z., be relieved of their duties. These requests were rejected on 24 November 2020. The first applicant seems to have appealed against this decision on 15 February 2021. She subsequently made a similar request with respect to the expert committee, M.R.M. and B.Z., arguing, inter alia, that the appointed experts were not suitable for the task and lacked impartiality, and with respect to the judges of the Administrative Court, arguing that their conduct of the proceeding disclosed their lack of impartiality. The latter request was rejected on 5 February 2021. The first applicant’s subsequent appeal was rejected on 1 September 2021. She then lodged a constitutional complaint which appears to be pending before the Constitutional Court. 30. On 2 February 2021 the appointed experts submitted their report. They found that the first applicant though being able to develop ties with W and Z, was not able to provide for their long-term stable and stimulating upbringing, given W’s and Z’s special needs and the first applicant’s abilities. They emphasised, however, that she was fit to play the role of a grandmother. In the experts’ view Z was not capable of forming an opinion as regards with whom he preferred to live, and W had explicitly preferred his current living arrangement. The experts found that an attempt to place W and Z with the first applicant would have very likely led to a serious decompensation in the mental functioning of the children, who were attached to their foster family and had achieved significant developmental progress and emotional stability. A potential reintegration in their original family, if that would be their wish, would make sense only later, when they were around fourteen or fifteen years old, and with appropriate facilitation. They also noted the importance of contact between the applicants and their grandchildren and advised that contact be gradually organised for longer periods and that the grandchildren be able to visit the first applicant at her home. 31. The first applicant replied to the report on 18 February 2021 and the children’s special guardian replied on 8 March 2021. The latter requested that a further explanation be provided by the experts regarding certain issues. He also noted that the contact between the applicants and W and Z should be intensified given the lapse of time which negatively affected the chances of reintegration of W and Z into the applicants’ family. On 8 June 2021 the expert committee submitted an additional report. 32. In the meantime, on 11 March 2021 the first applicant made a request for an interim measure to allow W and Z to spend more time with her in order to facilitate their reunification in the event of a positive outcome of the proceedings. On 25 March 2021 the Administrative Court rejected the request, noting that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the contact arrangements in the foster care permission proceedings. On 19 May 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal. 33. In view of the parties’ submissions (see paragraph 31 above), the Administrative Court, on 28 September 2021, decided to appoint a panel of three experts from different areas of psychology to prepare a report concerning, among other things, whether the first applicant would be able to foster W and Z and, if so, whether their reintegration in the first applicant’s family would be in their best interests. The experts were also requested to assess W’s and Z’s ability to express their view on the matter. They were given ninety days to complete the task. On 10 November 2021 the court issued a decision removing one of the experts from the panel and replacing her with another expert. On 11 November 2021 the Chamber of Clinical Psychologists of Slovenia sent to, inter alios, the Supreme Court and the Administrative Court a letter, signed also by the newly appointed expert, N.B., in which it criticised the decision to appoint the expert in investigative psychology and the expert in family psychology as members of the panel. Subsequently, the first applicant requested that N.B. be removed from the panel. On 30 November 2021 the court upheld her request and appointed a new expert, R.T., to replace N.B. 34. The proceedings are still pending. CONTACT PROCEEDINGS
35. Pursuant to the C. District Court’s decision of 15 June 2017, the applicants were entitled to spend two hours with W and Z every other week in a special centre with facilities for children, under the supervision of welfare officers. This decision was based on expert opinions prepared by forensic experts M.Ž.T. (expert in child psychiatry) and V.S. (expert in clinical psychology). Contact arrangements between W and Z and their father and other relatives had also been put in place. The contact arrangements between the applicants and their grandchildren were later modified (see below). They continued to be implemented as per the below decisions, with the exception of the period between October 2020 and January 2021 when they were interrupted due to the pandemic. The brief reports prepared by the welfare officer present during the visits, which usually lasted three hours, indicate that the children enjoyed the time spent with the applicants. The reports mostly describe a positive and playful atmosphere during the visits. Proceedings before the first and second instance court following the applicants’ request for extended contact with W and Z
36. On 17 October 2017 the applicants filed a new proposal for extended contact with their grandchildren. They referred to the expert opinion of D.T., provided in the proceedings concerning a foster care permission (see paragraph 18 above), in particular to his observation that the applicants and their grandchildren should be able to visit each other at home. They requested that the contacts be unsupervised and extended to every Wednesday afternoon, all weekends, and all national and school holidays. The opposing parties in these proceedings were the V. Centre (acting as the children’s ex lege guardian – see paragraph 16 above, and paragraphs 51 and 53 below), the S. Centre (responsible for supervising the implementation of contact), the foster parent (holder of the right to care for W and Z), and the father of W and Z (holder of parental rights). The V. Centre and the foster parent were represented by the same advocate in the proceedings. 37. During the proceedings the S. Centre submitted a report concerning the implementation of contact arrangements between the applicants and W and Z. The V. Centre prepared a report concerning W and Z (their developmental progress, integration into their foster family and so on). The V. Centre, the foster parent and the father did not oppose the applicants having contact with W and Z but disagreed with their proposal for extended and unsupervised contact. The applicants throughout the proceedings objected – unsuccessfully – to the foster parent’s anonymity (see paragraph 12 above). They also raised concerns about the V. Centre acting as the guardian of W and Z and argued that the children should be heard in the proceedings. 38. During the proceedings, the C. District Court requested a new expert opinion from child psychiatrist M.Ž.T. The latter met with W and Z as well as the applicants and examined them. In her opinion the frequency of contact between the applicants and their grandchildren should be reduced, while the duration of each contact should be extended. The contacts should be implemented in the presence of an official who could provide guidance to the applicants and ensure that the media did not interfere. M.Ž.T. was also heard at the hearing, in the presence of the applicants. She explained that having regard to their age (at the time they were eight and five years old respectively) and their personal characteristics, W and Z were not able to give a relevant opinion on the matter. Their opinion would have reflected only a momentary mood and the need for comfort. 39. The applicants responded to the expert opinion with written comments. 40. On 30 October 2018 the C. District Court issued a decision, which was largely based on the findings of M.Ž.T. The court, relying on her opinion, did not hear W and Z. It also noted that W and Z could not be parties to the proceedings since pursuant to the applicable law only children who were fifteen years old or older and capable of understanding the importance and consequences of their actions could act autonomously as parties to proceedings. It decided that the contact between the applicants and their grandchildren should take place under the supervision of an officer appointed by the competent welfare centre every third Wednesday of the month, for a duration of three hours. It noted that the applicants’ rights to unsupervised contact had to be balanced against W’s and Z’s interest to be protected from media intrusion. As regards the examination of D.T., the court read his report but did not find it necessary to hear him in view of his limited field of expertise and given that his opinion was limited to the examination of the first applicant’s ability to foster W and Z. 41. The applicants appealed, arguing that W and Z should have been parties to the proceedings, their opinion heard, and expert D.T. examined because his position regarding contact was different from that of M.Ž.T. The applicants also objected to the scope of contact as determined in the first-instance court’s decision and the mandatory presence of a welfare officer during contact. 42. On 23 May 2019, the C. Higher Court dismissed the appeal. It essentially endorsed the findings of the C. District Court. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
43. The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint in which they argued that W and Z should have been able to participate in the proceedings or at least been given an opportunity to provide their view as to what kind of contact they preferred. The applicants also complained about the V. Centre’s role as the guardian of W and Z, submitting that the V. Centre could not have been considered impartial and that a special guardian should have been appointed to represent the children. Furthermore, in the applicants’ opinion the first instance court should have confronted experts M.Ž.T. and D.T. regarding their diverging statements, and expert D.T. should have been heard. The applicants moreover argued that they should have been allowed to have contact with W and Z without supervision, at their home and more frequently. 44. On 12 March 2020 the Constitutional Court decided on the applicants’ constitutional complaint by way of decision no. Up-677/19. It found that W and Z were not formal participants in the contact proceedings and that the V. Centre, which acted as the guardian of the children’s interest, did not exercise public powers or adopt any measures regarding the scope and manner of implementing contacts between the applicants and W and Z. Its only role was to act as the guardian of W and Z. The Constitutional Court did not therefore find it necessary that a special guardian for W and Z be appointed. 45. As regards the participation of W and Z in the court proceedings, the Constitutional Court found that the reasoning of the lower courts to the effect that the children’s interests were sufficiently protected by way of the participation of the V. Centre as their guardian was compatible with the constitutional right to equal protection of rights. As regards W’s and Z’s ability to express their views on their preferred contact arrangements, the Constitutional Court noted that this issue had been referred to expert M.Ž.T., who had found that W and Z were unable to express such views. The lower courts had relied on M.Ž.T.’s finding and therefore properly addressed this issue. 46. As regards expert D.T., the Constitutional Court found that his examination had been refused by the lower courts on two grounds. Firstly, expert D.T. was not in a position to testify in relation to the benefits of contact for children due to the nature and scope of his expertise. Secondly, his opinion, on which the applicants relied, had been prepared for the purpose of establishing the ability of the first applicant to carry out foster care of her grandchildren and not for determining the benefits of contacts between the applicants and W and Z. In the Constitutional Court’s view, these reasons for the rejection of the applicants’ request for evidence (that is, the examination of D.T.) were adequate. 47. The Constitutional Court also examined the issue of supervised contact and concluded that the way the scope and the nature of the visits had been determined by the lower courts did not raise concerns as regards the applicants’ right to family life, enshrined in, inter alia, Article 8 of the Convention. It found that the applicants continued to enjoy contact with W and Z but that at the same time their interest had to give way to that of their grandchildren. 48. The decision was adopted by six votes to one. The dissenting judge, D.J.P., provided a separate opinion in which she pointed out that both the proceedings concerning a foster care permission and the contact proceedings concerned the same family unit. She observed that D.T. had expressed his opinion as to W’s and Z’s best interests and argued that the request for him to be heard in the contact proceedings had not been rejected with relevant and sufficient reasons. She furthermore argued that only an independent and impartial representative could contribute to illuminating the views of W and Z, who could not themselves participate in the proceedings. She opined that the formal status of W and Z in the proceedings was not important. What mattered was that the proceedings had concerned the children and their views should have thus been properly represented. Unlike the majority, judge D.J.P. considered that there was a potential conflict of interest between the V. Centre and W and Z. In particular, the situation in question resulted from the V. Centre’s illegal removal of W and Z, through which the V. Centre had expressed its negative view as regards the suitability of the applicants to look after them. The V. Centre, which had exercised public powers when it removed W and Z, could not therefore be considered an independent and impartial representative of their interests. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
49. The Constitution provides that the family, motherhood, fatherhood, children, and young people should be protected and that the State shall create the necessary conditions for such protection (Article 53). Children and minors who are not cared for by their parents, who have no parents or who are without proper family care shall enjoy the special protection of the State. Their position shall be regulated by law (Article 56). DOMESTIC LEGISLATIONContact rights of grandparents

50. The Marriage and Family Relations Act was in force until 15 April 2019. It provided that a child had the right to have contact with persons with whom he or she had a close personal bond, such as, in particular, his or her grandparents, unless this would be contrary to the child’s interests. If no agreement on this was reached with the child’s parents it was for the civil court to decide on contact in non-contentious proceedings, after seeking an opinion of a competent social work centre regarding the child’s best interests. The child’s opinion was to be taken into account provided that he or she was capable of understanding its meaning and consequences (section 106a). Similar provisions are found in sections 142 and 143 of the Family Code, which has been in force since 15 April 2019. Representation and guardianship
51. Under the Marriage and Family Relations Act a welfare centre was obliged to take measures necessary for a child’s care and upbringing or protection of his or her pecuniary and other rights and interests (section 119). It was required to place a minor who was without parental care under guardianship (section 201). The purpose of a guardianship of minors was to provide for, inter alia, a wholesome development of the minors’ personality and to protect their pecuniary and other rights and interests (section 178). The welfare centre could decide to carry out the duties of a guardian with respect to the person under the guardianship instead of appointing a guardian (section 185). The guardian, or the welfare centre carrying out the duties of the guardian, was to represent the person under guardianship (section 192). 52. The Marriage and Family Relations Act stipulated under the general provisions concerning the guardianship that a person whose interest conflicted with those of the person under the guardianship could not act as his or her guardian (section 181). Section 212 provided that a body conducting proceedings could also appoint a guardian and inform the welfare authorities thereof. In the case of a conflict of interests between the person under guardianship and his or her (ex lege) guardian, a special guardian was to be appointed for the former (section 213 (2) of the Marriage and Family Relations Act; similar provisions are found in section 269 of the Family Code). 53. Section 409 of the Civil Contentious Procedure Act, which applied mutatis mutandis to non-contentious proceedings (such as contact arrangements proceedings), provided at the relevant time that a child under the age of fifteen or unable to understand the meaning and legal consequences of his or her actions was to be represented by a legal representative. Pursuant to the domestic jurisprudence submitted by the Government, the ex lege representative (zakoniti zastopnik) is determined by law or by the welfare authorities’ decision. If the interests of the child and his or her ex lege representative are in conflict or if so required for the protection of the child’s interest, the court should appoint a special representative. This followed also from the above-mentioned section 409. Foster care
54. Under the Marriage and Family Relations Act, a welfare centre was obliged to place into foster care a child who did not have a family or could for some reason not live with his or her parents or whose physical or mental development was endangered in his or her living environment (section 157). 55. Prior to amendments which came into force on 15 April 2019, the Provision of Foster Care Act provided that a child’s relative - that is his or her grandparent, uncle, aunt or a sibling - could carry out foster care if a welfare centre (this was replaced by “a court” with the amendments introduced in 2019) deemed this to be in the child’s interests (section 7). Before the aforementioned amendments, the decision granting a foster care permission (dovoljenje) was to be taken by the competent ministry, outside the regular foster care licence procedure, based solely on the application made by the relative and the written and reasoned assessment by a welfare centre with jurisdiction over the child to the effect that such foster care arrangement was in the child’s interests (old section 14). After the amendments introduced in 2019, the court can place a child with his or her relative when this is in the child’s interests, even if such relative does not hold a foster care licence but fulfils the conditions for carrying out foster care set out in law. When deciding on an application for a foster care permission lodged by a relative, the court takes account of the assessment made by a welfare centre with jurisdiction over the relative as regards his or her suitability for fostering and the assessment of a welfare centre with jurisdiction over the child as regards the question whether such arrangements would be in his or her best interests (section 14 (1)). Length of proceedings remedies
56. The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational on 1 January 2007 and has been subsequently amended. It provides for acceleratory remedies (a supervisory appeal and a motion for deadline) and a compensation claim (sections 5, 8 and 15). The aggrieved party can claim compensation once he or she has exhausted the acceleratory remedies and the proceedings complained of have been terminated with either a final decision or a decision concerning an extraordinary remedy. THE LAW
THE SCOPE OF THE CASE
57. The Court notes that in their reply to the Government’s observations the applicants argued that the issues dealt with in the foster care permission proceedings and the contact proceedings should be examined together within one set of proceedings. They further submitted arguments to the effect that the removal of W and Z from them and their placement in foster care in March 2016 had been unjustified and unlawful, that they had not exposed the children to the media, and that the media interest was due to the actions of the State authorities. They also criticised the latest expert report provided in the foster care permission proceedings and the findings of M.Ž.T. as well as arguing that the evidence showed that the supervision of their visits was unnecessary. They pointed out that the welfare worker who supervised the visits was a lawyer and thus not competent to provide support to the applicants. Moreover, the applicants stated that given the low frequency of contact, W and Z were being deliberately alienated from them. 58. In the Court’s view, the above arguments raised by the applicants are not an elaboration of their original complaints lodged with the Court on 28 April 2020 and communicated to the Government on 6 October 2020 (see paragraphs 59 and 84 below). Mentioned incidentally in their observations, they are not of such a nature as to qualify as a “complaint” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, §§ 63 and 64, 23 October 2018, and Chizhov v. Russia, no. 11536/19, §§ 47‑48, 6 July 2021). The Court will therefore not examine them. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION regarding the foster care permission proceedings
59. The applicants complained that the proceedings in which the first applicant requested a permission to foster W and Z have been unreasonably long and unfair, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

60. The Government argued that only the first applicant could claim to be a victim of a violation on account of the length of the foster care permission proceedings since only she was party to these proceedings. They further pointed out that the first applicant had used the acceleratory remedies provided by the 2006 Act only after the case had been remitted for re‑examination. The earlier pleadings in which she had urged that the proceedings be expedited could not be considered a remedy under the 2006 Act. They also objected that the complaint was premature because the first applicant would be able to use a compensatory remedy once the proceedings are terminated with a final decision. 61. The applicants pointed out that under the domestic law only one relative could apply for a foster care permission. However, the outcome of the proceedings would affect both applicants because they lived together, and both would care for W and Z in the event the permission was granted. They furthermore submitted that the first applicant had urged the domestic courts to expedite the proceedings during their first round. 62. In their submissions of 25 October and 13 December 2021, concerning factual developments in the case, the applicants complained that the continuing participation of the welfare authorities in the foster care permission proceedings, despite the appointment of the special guardian, was in breach of their right to a fair trial.

Outcome for Article 6: violation