CROATIA: DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE

COURTS, GOVERNMENT BODIES AND

INSTITUTIONS BASED ON ETHNIC ORIGIN
AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE – CASES OF
DALIBOR MOČEVIĆ

540 Alexander Road

Grantville, GA 30220
USA
www.hrlnwf.org
 1

Introduction
The role of the ODIHR in supporting the participating States in the
implementation of their commitments on the protection and promotion of human
rights and strengthening democratic institutions and the rule of law has never
faced more challenges than today. On its 30th anniversary, the organization has
to take account of its past achievements and look ahead to the changing world of
today. Many countries that apparently passed the test of institutional stability and
the rule of law, are indeed not up to the requirements of protection and promotion
of human rights. Such a case is Croatia, a recent member of the EU, with many
issues in the field of human rights, especially the rights of minorities, and their
institutional protection. The minorities often cannot rely on the independence of
institutions, and effective checks, and balances in the protection of their various
human rights.

According to the US Department of State, 2020 report there are significant human
rights issues in Croatia included: instances of violence against, and intimidation
and censorship of, journalists and the existence of criminal libel laws; reported acts
of unjustified police violence against irregular migrants, some of whom may have
been asylum seekers; corruption; and discrimination and violence against
members of ethnic minority groups, particularly Serbs and Roma.

The latter is all too clear in the case of Mr. Dalibor Močević, a Croatian and
Bosnian citizen of Serb origin. Through the years Mr. Močević suffered inequality
and discrimination before the institutions of the Republic of Croatia in cases of his
mother’s suspicious death in 2009, deprivation of property owned by him and his
family in Croatia, his inheritance rights, right to family life, and custody of his
minor children, deprivation and inability to maintain personal relations and direct
contact with his children living in Croatia, as well as unresponsiveness on his
repeated reports of threats he has been exposed from known assailants during his
unsuccessful search for justice within the system. He complains of violations of
Articles 2 and 14 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which were severely breached in the process of denying the right to an
effective remedy and the right of any person claiming such a remedy thereto
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by
any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State. The
State Party in question also failed to respect the rights recognized in the present
Covenant, without distinction based on the national origin of Mr. Močević. Articles
2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17 and 26 paras. 2) Of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which the State Party in question also acted in breach of. The actions, the
competent authorities took, or omitted to take, in this case, also in breach of
articles 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, establishes the

following: "No one shall be subjected either to arbitrary interference in his private,
family life, home and correspondence or attacks upon his honor and reputation.
Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law against such interferences or
attacks.
 2

Following the prohibition of discrimination based on race, sex, language, and

religion in the Charter of the United Nations, the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights together with the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948 became the next important step in
the legal consolidation of the principle of equality before the law and the resultant
prohibition of discrimination. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration proclaims that
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, while, according
to article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms outlined in this
Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, colanguage,
religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made based on the political,
jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing, or under any other
limitation of sovereignty. Concerning the right to equality, Article 7 of the
Universal Declaration stipulates that: „All are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled
to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
any incitement to such discrimination. „It is noteworthy that article 2 of the
Universal Declaration prohibits „distinction[s] of any kind” (emphasis added),
which could be read as meaning that no differences at all can be legally tolerated.
However, as will be seen below, such a restrictive interpretation has not been
adopted by authorities in Croatia.
Local and state authorities that were required to address the complainant's human
rights violations did not respond effectively to his address in contravention of their
internationally accepted obligations.

Many troubles Mr. Močević and his family were faced with, stemmed from
ethnically motivated discrimination and hatred that is widespread among the
population and political parties that base their ideas on nationalism and
xenophobia, especially towards the Serbs. Such treatment is especially evident in
the region of Dalmatia and other places which are particularly Catholic, and where
the population is of lower education and wealth.

Croatian Democratic Community (HDZ) a ruling party for most of Croatia’s 30-
year independence often condones end endorses anti-Serb sentiment. Prominent
politicians' attempts to erase Croatia's wartime crimes from the public's memory
and glorify brutal war criminals as national heroes contribute directly to the rise
of far-right ideas and narratives in Croatia.

In 2019, there was a spike in nationalist violence and hate crimes in Croatia. A
year earlier, a European Commission report warned that "racist and intolerant
hate speech in public discourse is escalating" in the country, with the main targets
being "Serbs, LGBT persons and Roma". The report added that the response of the
Croatian authorities to this worrying trend has been weak. By not only condoning
but also praising the crimes the Croatian forces committed against other ethnic
 3

groups, elites within the country are creating an environment in which more
people feel comfortable voicing xenophobic, racist, and hateful opinions. This
dangerous historic revisionism is not limited to the events that took place during
the relatively recent Yugoslav Wars either. In Croatia, far-right elements are also
attempting to revise the history of the Second World War.

The Ustaša, the fascist party that oversaw the Nazi-aligned Independent State of
Croatia between 1941 and 1945, murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews,
and Roma as well as political dissidents in Yugoslavia during World War II. The
party also oversaw the notorious Jasenovac concentration camp where, according
to estimates by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, between 77,000 and 99,000
people were murdered.

The world remembers the Ustaša as an ultranationalist, violent, racist "terrorist"

organization that represents a dark era in Croat and European history. In modern
Croatia, however, the brutality of the Ustaša regime's actions has at times been
downplayed by the media and prominent politicians, and the party is presented by
many as a symbol of national might and pride.

The party's salute, "Ready for [the] Homeland" (Za Dom Spremni) is still openly
used among far-right nationalists. Holocaust denial, which comes hand in hand
with the sanitization of Ustaša's crimes against Croatia's Jews, also seems to have
become more permissible in the country.

Every May, thousands of far-right Croats gather in a field in southern Austria

carrying Ustaša flags and insignia to commemorate the killing of thousands of
Ustašas there by Yugoslav anti-fascists at the end of World War II. They claim,
with tacit support from Croat politicians, that the annual event near the village of
Bleiburg symbolizes their suffering under communism in the former Yugoslavia
before the country's independence. Ruža Tomašić, a conservative representative in
the European Parliament from Croatia, for example, said in 2019 that the
commemoration has nothing to do with extremism and that the massacre
represents "a great tragedy".

From 1990 to 2000 more than 3000 antifascist Second World War memorials were
destroyed by acts of vandalism or in several cases removed by the decision of the
local administration...no perpetrator of vandalism using explosives against
memorials was ever found or prosecuted...in Dalmatia province, which was
liberated from Italian fascists in the Second World War and annexed to Croatia by
Croatian Partisans, 50 percent of all memorials were destroyed (482), and in the
wartime Partisan base of Makarska, for example, a hundred percent of all
memorials were destroyed! According to an analysis by Second World War
veterans, “The Destruction of Antifascist Monuments in Croatia, 1990 – 2000” the
destruction was planned and systematic. First targeted were memorials
commemorating the mass murder of Serbs and Jews by the Ustaše, the executions
of prominent Croatian anti-fascist fighters, and the roles of Tito and the
 4

Communist Party in the antifascist liberation struggle. (Slobodna

Dalmacija,2004c). 1

Such sentiment and behavior have also the backing of the Catholic Church in
Croatia. Recently Croatia has come to represent an emphatically ethno-sectarian
and extreme nationalistic type of Catholicism; while receiving boycotts and
reprimands, it has nevertheless always managed also to receive backing from some
countries and circles in the Catholic Church. Archbishop Francisco-Javier Lozano,
in an interview with Radio Vatican on 27 July 2004 said: Croatia is today the most
Catholic country in Europe. The voice of the church is being heard well; the church
can influence the legal order.... I do not know of any other country in which
society and government pay such attention to what the church has to say, especially
about social issues (Jutarnj list 2004). In a follow-up polemic the ruling Catholic
party, the Croatian Democratic Community (Hrvatska Demokratska zajednica
(HDZ)), sounded triumphant. The HDZ returned to power after a 2003 electoral
victory assisted by the church. One of HDZ party leaders, Andrija Hebrang, was
glad to hear the nuncio’s words but said modestly ‘Poland and Ireland remain
grand champions of Catholicism; they are probably more Catholic than Croatia’
(Novi list, 2004a). 2

Croatia’s Catholic identity and belonging to western civilization have become key
tenets of the new patriotic ideology. The former Yugoslav communist regime’s
concept of the ‘ideological state’ continued at least during the Tudjman era (1990
– 99), albeit under different symbols. International reports have listed problems
such as an inefficient judiciary, wasteful administration, growing corruption in
politics and economy, Franjo Tudjman’s authoritarian habits and slow reform since
his death. Party politics has been by and large a matter of nationalist boasting: the
HDZ has claimed to have rescued Croatia from the Serb menace. 3

In this environment, Mr. Dalibor Močević and his family lived in Zadar the city
where anti-Serb sentiment is one of the highest in the country. Association of Anti-
Fascist Fighters and Anti-Fascists of the Zadar County in 2008 criticized the Zadar
city administration’s failure to implement the Declaration on Anti-Fascism, passed
by the Croatian Parliament in 2005, or more precisely because of the refusal of
Mayor Živko Kolega to lay a wreath at the monument to anti-fascists who died
during World War II. Zadar anti-fascists also stressed that governments at all
levels do not do enough to combat neo-ustaša ideology. 4 This sentiment is
dominant in Zadar and the entire county since 1990. This was the time when the
troubles of Mr. Dalibor Močević and his family have erupted and continued to this
day.

The chronological flow of events went as follows:

1 Perica (316).
2 „The Most Catholic Country in Europe? Church,State, and Society in Contemporary Croatia“.
Vjekoslav Perica. Religion, State & Society, Vol. 34, No. 4, December 2006. Routlege
3 Perica.
4 Zadarski list, 19.12.2008. „The government is not doing enough to combat neo-ustaša ideology“

(Vlast ne radi dovoljno na suzbijanju neoustaštva)

 5

Denial of human rights and discrimination

1. Criminal complaints about the death of Mr. Močević’s mother and received
threats

The mother of the Mr. Dalibor Močević, Mrs. Sofija Močević, died on August 25th
2009 in the Zadar General Hospital (Opća bolnica Zadar). From the moment of
death, Mr. Dalibor Močević suspected that his mother did not die a natural death
and that it was a violent death caused by her common-law husband, Mr. Ante
Radetić a Croatian national. On that day, in the early morning hours, Mrs. Sofija
Močević suffered a stroke, and urgent medical assistance from General Hospital
Zadar was called upon by Mr. Radetić. Since Mr. Dalibor Močević at that time was
absent from Zadar, after having learned of a tragic event, he requested a copy of
the medical documentation from which he had noticed many differences in official
records of admittance and course of illness, from what his mother's common-law
spouse had said to him about the course of events. Although under the Rulebook
on Conditions, Organization, and Method of Outpatient Emergency Medical
Assistance, (Article 25, paragraphs 6, 7, and 9), it was prescribed that HMP
(ambulance emergency services) forms should be found in the medical
documentation, they were not there. Upon request to GH Zadar, Mr. Dalibor
Močević was told to address the health center, which he did without any response,
and then he addressed the Ministry of Health, but there was no response there,
either.

According to the information Mr. Močević had received from Mr. Radetić, he noted
that the late Sofia Močević was feeling ill, at about 1:30 in the morning, as well as
being paralyzed on the left side of the body, while according to documents from the
hospital, his mother was admitted to the hospital around 3:30 in the morning,
although the apartment she lived in, was only about 100 m away. When he asked
for a copy of the complete medical documentation, Mr. Močević only received a
report from the protocol. In the last month before her death, the mother Sofija
Močević had drastic changes in the blood chemistry, while the medical records
showed no signs of poisoning, although there was no toxicological finding in the
documentation, nor was it clear based on which facts such a conclusion was made
by emergency medical staff. In the end, after his mother's death, the hospital
returned her jewelry and watch to Mr. Dalibor Močević, even though she was
supposedly transported to a hospital out of bed, where she went to sleep when she
felt sick. Mr. Močević was certain that his mother never wore jewelry and watch
in bed and always removed them before bedtime. After his mother's death, her
partner, Ante Radetić has gone into swift selling of her real-estate property and
withdrawal of funds from the joint bank accounts, which further enhanced Mr.
Močević’s suspicion about the cause of death.

Just several days after the death of Sofija Močević, and two months before the
conclusion of the inheritance proceedings, Mr. Radetić advertised the sale of the
apartment in Zadar, Mihovila Pavlinovića Street, they both had joint ownership
 6

of, and several days after the conclusion of inheritance proceedings Mr. Radetić,
advertised and sold the garage they also owned in Zadar.

Due to these and other circumstances indicating unlawful conduct and unclear
circumstances regarding mother's death, Mr. Dalibor Močević, sent a letter by
electronic mail dated December 20th, 2010, to the County Prosecutors Office in
Zadar (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo), requesting the investigation of
aforementioned suspicions. County Prosecutors Office compiled a case, number
KR-DO-405/2010 and sent a request to the hospital in Zadar to make a statement
on the relevant facts, and also to the Zadar police, which was to carry out the
necessary investigations. Zadar police interviewed Dalibor Močević on 25 March
2011. An interview with Ante Radetić was done on 10 May 2011. Subsequently,
the police did not take any action nor informed Mr. Dalibor Močević about the
outcome of the proceedings, the suspension of the proceedings, or the filing of the
criminal report, which is why on 08 March 2011 Mr. Dalibor Močević filed a
complaint to the internal affairs division of the Ministry of Interior, against the
investigating officers of Zadar police department. During 2011, 2012, and 2013,
Mr. Močević complained to the State Attorney Office (DORH), about the excessive
length of the preliminary investigation into the death of his mother and disturbing
phone calls, but it didn't help its effectiveness or a conclusion of the proceedings.

In December 2010 Mr. Dalibor Močević had received several threats via text
messages, from his common-law spouse, whom he met through the son of Mr. Ante
Radetić. The threats were related to the division of inheritance of his deceased
mother, which he had put in connection with Mr. Radetić's efforts to obtain his
mother's property. These threats have also been reported to the police accompanied
by a list of telephone conversations and SMS messages, but the police did not carry
out any investigative actions, except informing Mr. Dalibor Močević that due to the
complexity and comprehensiveness of the case, several organizational units were
involved. On 28 March 2012, Mr. Dalibor Močević filed a criminal complaint to the
County Prosecutor's Office in Zadar, against police officers of Zadar police who
were involved both in the cases of his mother’s death and received threats, but that
complaint had no outcome either (acceptance or rejection), or had Mr. Močević been
notified about the proceeding, to which he was entitled to according to the Criminal
procedure code and the Constitution.

It is indicative that Ante Radetić is in kinship and godfather relations with persons
involved in political life in Zadar County as well as throughout Croatia. Mr.
Radetić’s uncle Marko Veselica, a radically right and militant member of the HDZ
was involved in the so-called crystal night in Zadar, when on May 2, 1991, a mob
of several thousand people stormed all the shops of Serbian companies in Zadar as
well as those of local Serbs (about 130), causing a rampage the police watched
without reaction. In the period immediately after, about 430 Serbian houses were
mined and destroyed. 5

5 „Sixth report of the fry government on war crimes committed in the territory of the former SFRY“
 7

By information gathered recently, Mr. Močević points out that Ante Radetić who
met his mother in 1989 is also in close godfather ties with Petar Šale. At the
beginning of 1989, when the Croatian nationalists began organizing the future
HDZ, Yugoslav State Security (SDB) identified Marko Veselica and Petar Šale as
"radically right and militant". 6 In 1974 as a 27-year-old student from Zagreb, Petar
Šale was on trial along with 15 other persons charged with planning criminal acts
against Yugoslav people and state to establish an independent Croatia. The group
is also accused of maintaining contacts with Ustaša movement and other extremist
emigre organizations. It allegedly planned to expel or forcibly assimilate all Serbs
in Croatia and to incorporate Bosnia-Herzegovina and other parts of SFRY now
outside Croatia into a new Croatian state. 7 Although sentenced to a long prison
sentence in the case where the prosecutor was the husband of a judge of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia in its current convocation (the
judge who sat at the panel rejecting Mr. Močević’s Constitutional complaint in the
case of his mother in 2017), Petar Šale became the Public Attorney General in
1992. His famous statement from those times is that: "Croatian State Policy
Should Regulate Complete Social and Political Life" including the judiciary. This
will become apparent in the next cases when Mr. Močević’s problems become
further extremely personal in nature.

2. Deprivation of property

Mr. Dalibor Močević had a permanent residence in the apartment located in Zadar,
at Ugljanska Street, number 6. He resided there since his birth on 24 August 1972,
up until 1994, as the member of the household of the specially protected tenant,
(nosilac stanarskog prava), his father, Savo Močević, who was given the tenancy of
the apartment in 1972, by his former employer, Customs office Zadar. Under the
relevant legislation, Mr. Dalibor Močević and his mother, Sofija Močević,
automatically became a co-holder of the specially protected tenancy of the
apartment.

In 1993, the Ministry of finance, Customs administration, Customs office Zadar,

brought a civil action against Mr. Močević’s parents in the Zadar Municipal Court
(Općinski sud u Zadru), seeking their eviction. For the plaintiff appeared Mr.
Branko Ganzulić, a nephew of Petar Šale, and also a member of the HDZ (Croatian
Democratic Community). Mr. Ganzulić is for over 25 years a prominent member of
the party and local politician with close friends and family ties to influential party
members. After accepting the lawsuit from the court, the state was represented by
the Zadar Public Attorney's Office, under the Public Attorney General’s Office then
headed by Petar Šale. The plaintiff stipulated that the tenants had ceased using
the said apartment for a period longer than 6 months. Mr. Močević’s father died on
15 September 1992, as a victim of the war in Bosnia, where he was placed in a
sanatorium, for the last years of his life. Since Mr. Dalibor Močević was not
included in the lawsuit, he filed a petition as an intervener. He stated that as co-
holder of the specially protected tenancy, he was entitled to use and purchase the

6Matica Hrvatska
7WikiLeaks (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974ZAGREB01060_b.html
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974ZAGREB01087_b.html )
 8

apartment, under the Housing Act. At the beginning of 1993, he also submitted a
request for transfer of tenancy right to his name. Since he was employed in
merchant shipping, he left Zadar in January 1993, and upon his return in February
1994, found the apartment occupied by a family of refugees. From Mr. Močević’s
knowledge, those refugees were brought to take residence in the apartment by Mr.
Ante Radetić so they could allegedly “keep an eye” on the property. Mr. Močević’s
personal belongings were still left in the apartment. In the proceedings, the court
acquired a certificate from Zadar police, certifying that Mr. Dalibor Močević had
registered residence in Ugljanska, number 6, since 29 September 1988. At that
time Mr. Močević had no other place of residence. The apartment of 58 sqm, that
his mother was consequently given a protective tenancy at, by her employer, was
occupied by her, her new husband, and his children, becoming over-cramped as it
was, so his only residence was in the apartment that was taken away from him
during his voyage.

On 9 February 1999, the Municipal Court ruled for the plaintiff, canceling specially
protected tenancy rights to Mr. Močević’s mother. Mr. Dalibor Močević's
intervention lawsuit was continued to be tried separately. Mr. Močević sued the
State based on the Lease of Apartments Act, asking for a protected tenancy of the
same apartment, where he lived for the most of his life. On 26 April 2001, the
Municipal Court ruled for the defendant, dismissing Mr. Močević’s lawsuit.
Following an appeal by Mr. Močević, on 11 September 2003, the Zadar County
Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) quashed the first-instance judgment and remanded
the case. On 11 November 2004, the Municipal Court again ruled for the Defendant
State. Following another appeal by Mr. Močević, on 27 September 2006, the Zadar
County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remanded the case
for a retrial.

First instance proceedings continued on 8 February 2008, after 15 years from the
initial lawsuit. On 17 March 2008, the Municipal Court again ruled against Mr.
Dalibor Močević, dismissing his claim for protected tenancy of the apartment in
Ugljanska Street. The court found that Mr. Dalibor Močević had not been entitled
to purchase the apartment under the Specially Protected Tenancies Act (Sale to
Occupier), or to acquire the status of a protected lessee under the Lease of
Apartments Act. Accordingly, the court concluded that he had no title to the
apartment even though he had no other place of residence since he didn't occupy
his mother's apartment and was considered a remaining member of the household
(preostali član porodičnog domaćinstva) in the terms of the Act. On 31 August
2010, the Zadar County Court dismissed Mr. Dalibor Močević’s appeal and upheld
the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final and enforceable.

Mr. Dalibor Močević then lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the
Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). Relying on sections 382 (1) and
382(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, he argued that his case raised legal issues
important for ensuring the legal certainty and uniform application of the law and
equality of citizens. Mr. Dalibor Močević pointed out that he has no other place of
residence and that he lived in the apartment from his birth, until the beginning of
1994 when the apartment was occupied by third persons (refugees). On 3 March
 9

2011, the Supreme Court declared Mr. Dalibor Močević’s appeal on points of law
inadmissible as it found that neither the value of the subject matter of the dispute
reached the statutory threshold, or that the raised issues satisfied the prescribed
points of law.

Meanwhile, on 25 October 2010, Mr. Močević lodged a constitutional complaint

with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the
County Court’s decision, alleging violations of his constitutional rights to equality
before the law and fair procedures as well as his rights to respect for his home and
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Mr. Močević was forced to leave Croatia at
the end of 2011 due to fear for his safety, because of the threats he received over
the phone and various other personal security issues. He had no knowledge of the
outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, for some years. His
mother had died in 2009, so he had no living relative left in Croatia. Finally, on 24
November 2016, after repeated inquiries made by electronic mail, Mr. Močević
received a notification from the Constitutional Court of Croatia, with information
that his constitutional complaint was decided upon on 22 February 2012. The
decision was sent to his lawyers in Zadar, who refused receipt of the decision on
the grounds of further nonrepresentation of Mr. Dalibor Močević. The Court then
tried to deliver the decision at the address of Mr. Močević's residence, in Zadar,
Ugljanska, number 6, where there was the apartment which Mr. Dalibor Močević
was deprived of, but the mail returned with the notice "unknown". After two
repeated unsuccessful deliveries, in July 2012, the Court posted the decision on its
bulletin board. After receiving an email from the Constitutional Court, Mr. Dalibor
Močević was orally informed that the Court dismissed his complaint as unfounded.
Although he tried, he couldn't acquire a copy of the decision to this day.

3. Inheritance proceedings

Mr. Močević’s maternal grandfather, late Dušan Prostran, died on 06 October

1986, leaving the will, made on 16 January 1986 and signed before the witnesses,
which made it legally valid according to the Inheritance law. The inheritance
proceedings on this will were completed by the decision on the inheritance of the
Municipal Court in Zadar, No. O. 394/87 of 30 June 1989. There was no dispute
among the heirs, and the said decision became final.

Mr. Močević’s maternal grandmother, Olga Prostran, died without a will, on 3 July
2000. Her property consisted of all the remaining assets not inherited by other
heirs, according to her husband, Dušan Prostran's will, and by the decision of the
Municipal Court in Zadar dated 30 June 1989, she inherited land in the total area
of 1,425 ha, registered in KO Smoković. Although she had the property and several
heirs, including Mr. Močević, after the death of his late mother, the proceedings
had not been carried out, but the Municipal Court in Zadar, by the notary public
Davor Miskovic, issued a ruling, no. O-314/2008 of 13 October 2015 that the
inheritance hearing will not be conducted due to the lack of inheritable property of
Mrs. Olga Prostran. It was stated in the decision that by the successor's statements
it could not have been established with certainty that the possessor had any
property, which is not correct, as the court's decision of 30 June 1989, by which
 10

Olga Prostran inherited property in ownership, was delivered to the notary by the
time the inheritance proceedings were due to commence. Therefore, the
inheritance proceedings initiated in 2008 have not yet been completed.

In the same way, the state authorities acted after the death of Mr. Močević's uncle,
Gojko Prostran, who died on September 6, 2007, that Mr. Močević was supposed to
inherit, and the procedure has not been completed to this day.

Regarding the length of the inheritance proceedings no. O-314/2008, which was
brought before the Municipal Court in Zadar, the court or the notary public could
not fail to deliver a decision since the statements of living heirs and written
evidence from the inscription in the land register KO Smoković could establish the
existence of immovable property. In the present case, the state authorities violated
Mr. Močević's constitutional right to a decision by a legally established
independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable time, which was
guaranteed by Article 29 § 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.

According to Mr. Močević’s knowledge, Mrs. Vera Čudić a lawyer at the office of
the notary public handling the inheritance of his family is in friendly relations to
Ante Radetić’s older sisters and is often a guest at the household he shares with
his mother.

4. Failed custody battle and deprivation of contact with children

Mr. Dalibor Močević was in a common-law marriage with Željka Šimunović from
Našice, in the period from January 1st, 2003 until August 26th, 2006 when this
marriage ceased to exist because of mutual differences and severe alcoholism of
Željka Šimunović. In this marriage, the son I.M was born on February 14, 2007.

On May 30th, 2008 Mr. Dalibor Močević's spouse filed a lawsuit to the Našice
Municipal Court to entrust her with sole custody of minor I.M. Although she has
not lived together with Mr. Dalibor Močević for two years, Mr. Močević's spousal
wife has taken the child with her even though she did not have the right to do so
because the parents did not arrange for care, nor did any competent authority
make any decision about it. On 17 June 2008, the Municipal Court in Našice
resolved the lawsuit by decision, number: R1-54 / 08-3 of 17.6.2008 in which minor
I.M was entrusted to immediate care of his mother, which by this decision got the
sole custody.

Without notice and presence of the father, who lived at that time in Zadar at the
address where he and his wife lived, which could not have been unknown to his
spouse, or the Našice Municipal Court, the child minor was taken away from his
mother because of alcoholism and psychiatric problems (behavioral change and
family conflict) upon the proposal of the Center for Social Welfare Našice, No. R1-
5 / 10-3 of 28 January 2010, and entrusted into the care of her parents who lived
with her in the same household.
 11

When Mr. Močević became aware of these facts, as well as about the child being
subjected to extreme mental pressure due to the circumstances that had arisen,
and that even after being taken from his mother, he is being subjected to mental
torture, Mr. Dalibor Močević filed a proposal on 20 December 2010 to the Našice
Municipal Court, for the adoption of a decision on parental care by which the child
would be entrusted to him, due to the changed circumstances on the part of the
mother, which by a previous decision of the court, was entrusted with sole custody,
in addition to the removal of the child, by decision of the Center for Social Welfare
in Našice on 28 June 2010 and an imposed measure of supervision, with obligatory
psychiatric treatment, which, in Mr. Močević’s opinion could mentally hurt the
child even more.

Mr. Dalibor Močević also came into possession of the release letter from the
neuropsychiatric hospital "Dr. Ivan Barbot" in Popovača, where his ex-wife was
treated with alcohol addiction, diagnosis of F 10.2 and anxiety-depressive disorder,
diagnosis F 41.2, during the period from 10 February 2010 to 17 May 2010. In
addition, in the history of illness, it is clear that the patient is a heavy alcoholic
with borderline personality disorder and that she has a conflicting relationship
with her mother, often resulting in domestic violence because of them living in the
same household. Under such conditions, the court in Našice entrusted minor I.M,
then only 3 years old to his grandparents living in the same household with his
mother, while he was allegedly taken away from her care, continuing to face
constant, day to day conflicts between them. During the proceedings, the mother
argued that she did not want to allow the father to see her child in Zadar and
without her supervision, which did not provoke a reaction from the Center for
Social Welfare, although according to their findings mother was so unfit to raise a
child that he had to be taken away from her custody. On the other hand, Našice
Social Welfare Center had no objections to the custody of Mr. Dalibor Močević, as
the child’s father.

Meanwhile, the Municipal Court in Našice issued the ruling number: R1-10 / 11-3
of 28 January 2011, which replaced its previous decision, R1-5 / 10 of 28 January
2010, and restored the care of minor I.M, to the mother, and arranged father's
visitation rights so that the child will see his father once a month for 10-12 hours,
on Saturday, in Našice. Mr. Dalibor Močević lodged an appeal against this decision
to the Osijek County Court on 14 February 2011. In the appeal, Mr. Močević
pointed out that the court completely excluded him as the father in the process in
which it decided about the care of his young son and the manner of family visits.
Also, the fact of mother’s mental illness, and propensity for alcoholism, were
pointed out as well known to the court and documented with evidence of the
household in which the child resides being in a state of permanent physical
conflicts which is why the mother was under the supervision of CSS in Našice.
Despite all this, the first instance court ruled that such a mother should be
awarded custody of the child, while the child is still staying in the atmosphere that
is unquestionably neither positive nor healthy for him to grow up in. By the
provisions of the Family Law, if one parent is unable to care for a child, then this
obligation is taken over by another parent, and only he or she is unable to care, the
child can be entrusted to another person.
 12

The Osijek County Court decided on appeal on 10 March 2011, overturned the first
instance ruling, and remanded the case for retrial. County Court decided that the
disputed decision was brought in violation of the right to a fair trial because the
father was now allowed to participate. In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal
Court's case file R1-31 / 11, was joined with a file R1-103 / 10-23, the proposal for
the allocation of a child in the care of his father, for the reason of expediency. Mr.
Dalibor Močević proposed to conduct a psychiatric examination of the mother,
regarding her psychic and psychological relationship with the child, because the
child is under constant and chronic stress. Instead, the court ordered a psychiatric
examination of Mr. Dalibor Močević, who had no history of mental illness or any
dependencies.

Mr. Močević was subsequently absent from Croatia, only to leave it permanently
in early 2012. Relations with the mother of his child persisted, and he was later
informed by Mrs. Šimunić’s family that she continued to drink and consequently
left the child and moved abroad. Mr. Močević came in possession of the decision of
Municipal Court in Našice, number: R1-103 / 10-23, rejecting his proposal and
returning the child to mother's care in May of 2017 because the decision was not
delivered to Mr. Močević personally who was the party in the proceedings, but to a
person who lived at the address in Zadar he left in 2012. After obtaining a copy of
the decision, Mr. Močević lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming the violation
of his, and his son's human rights, namely the rights protected under articles 6
and 8 to the Convention.

In 2017 Mr. Močević’s ex-wife again abandoned the son and left Croatia in an
unknown direction. A year later she was extradited from Austria where she lived
as a homeless person, mentally unstable and alcoholic. At the beginning of 2019
Municipal court in Đakovo, a section in Našice, (former Municipal court) initiated
proceedings no. 15.ref; R1 Ob-18/2019 to deprive/restore the right to parental care
of minor I.M. Although the child has been left without care from a parent who can
provide him with a stable and nurturing environment by a direct fault from the
family court judge Ankica Wolf, who ignored all evidence that the mother was an
unsuitable parent and denied father the right to care for his child solely on ethnic
grounds, she is still presiding the case leaving Mr. Močević and his attorney out of
the ongoing proceedings. All requests Mr. Močević made in 2019 for the exclusion
from proceedings of both the judge, the president of the court in Đakovo and the
delegation of jurisdiction to another court were either rejected or not decided upon
by the Supreme Court of Croatia, despite clear evidence that the child was
endangered and hindered in normal development by judge Wolf, who, despite the
facts and the evidence entrusted the minor child with a psychologically unstable
and alcoholic parent, prone to vagrancy who clearly could not care or provide for
him. The child is living for over 10 years now in a state of mental anguish.

In 2018, the same court, Municipal Court in Đakovo - Permanent Services in

Našice, and the same judge initiated proceedings Case number R1 Ob-18/2019 - a
non-contentious case of the proponent, the Našice Social Welfare Center, against
the counterparties, mother Željka Šimunović, now of unknown residence,
 13

represented by special guardian Maja Majski, B.Sc. iur., (employees of the Center
for Special Custody Osijek) and father Dalibor Močević, residing at the address in
BiH, East Sarajevo, Srpskih palih boraca 33, for deprivation of the right to parental
care over the minor son of the counterparties, Igor Močević.

The procedure started on November 21, 2018, and ended with a final decision
Number: 15 Rl Ob-18 / 2019-27 of 17 July 2019, without the presence of the
counterparty, the father of the child, who did not have a representative or special
guardian in the proceedings, submitted any submission of CZS Našice, a
guardianship body, special guardians or any of the decisions in the case in which
he is deprived of parental care rights. Mr. Močević was not summoned to any of
the three scheduled and two hearings held in case R1 Ob-18 / 2019-27, which
deprived him of the right to a fair trial because he was not allowed to appear before
the court.

From the content of the decision of 17 July 2019, it is clear that the court had a
known and accessible address residence of the father of the child. It is also clear
from the content of the same decision that he submitted the powers of attorney,
but the court refused to submit the files. In the end, it's the court the electronic
address of the child's father was also known, but not in the manner prescribed by
Article 133d of the LCP, the court he did not want to make the delivery, thereby
denying the father, in addition to legal, and human rights prescribed Article 29 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia and Art. 6 parag. 1 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights
freedoms, ie the right to participate in the procedure in which its rights are decided
obligations, thus violating his right to the protection of the family in the absence
of a legitimate aim life (Article 8 of the European Convention).

The European Court of Human Rights has taken the position in well-known case
law that: “the parties must have the opportunity to participate in proceedings
against them and defend their interests”. The competent authorities must
therefore take the necessary steps to inform them of the proceedings concerning
them.

If the court considered that despite the addresses at its disposal, Dalibor Močević
has something of an unknown residence, he was obliged to appoint a special
guardian in the proceedings, as he had done in the case of the mother, Željka
Šimunovic. As it did not act in the mentioned manner, the Municipal Court in
Našice did place the father in an unequal position with other parties in the
procedure.

The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that the state “must not
restrict the right that is left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent
that the very essence of the right is violated. Furthermore, the restriction will not
be compatible with Article 6 (1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if it does
not there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means
employed and the aim desired to achieve "(Zubac v. Croatia § 78).
 14

That he could participate in the proceedings, and that he had the right to be
provided with documents, opinions, and findings of CSZ Našice, as well as the
statements, are given in the proceedings, the father would have stated that he had
tried over the years to maintain contact with the child and that for the child's last
birthday he tried to get in touch and sent a gift, laptop that the child's grandmother
refused to receive. After delivery is retried on the address of the CZS Našice, the
gift was received. Mr. Močević also took care of his son, which was not given the
opportunity by Judge Wolf to argue and prove. Immediately after the birth of his
son Igor, he opened a savings account in his name with OTP bank HR, to which
his mother - the child's grandmother - paid in favor of the son monthly support
payments until her death in OB Zadar, 25.08.2009, and after that, the father
extended the contract of managing child’s savings and continued to pay money.
This was the case with many other facts as well, which the court erroneously
established to the detriment of Mr. Močević, without evidence which he was not
allowed to submit, and to dispute the facts in the proceedings.

The fact that the father knew that the proceedings were being conducted does not
release the court from its obligation to deliver summons properly, to all parties in
the procedure prescribed by procedural laws and prescribed in international
conventions. All of the above indicates that the Municipal Court in Našice, by its
inaction and refusal of delivery of the summons and case files to the opposing party
as a participant in the proceedings, denied the right to a fair trial and prevented
the father of the child from participating in the proceedings in which he was
deprived of the right to parental care of his son, and whom the same court and
judge entrusted to the care of his mother Željka Šimunović in 2010, despite the
evidence that she is an alcoholic and a psychiatric patient and who was deprived
of parental care in the same proceedings, accordingly by law and with
representation through a special guardian, which the father of the child was not
allowed to do. Therefore, the father of the child was deprived of the right to
parental care, by discriminatory and illegal actions of the Municipal Court in
Našice, contrary to the Constitution and all international conventions.

In 2019, Mr. Močević was completely deprived of the right to parental care over his
minor son in Našice in the proceedings he was not summoned to. The procedure
started on November 21, 2018, and ended with a final decision Number: 15 R1 Ob-
18 / 2019-27 of 17 July 2019. The father of the child, who did not have a
representative or special guardian in the parental deprivation case was excluded
from participation in the case, have not been served with any document from the
Center for Social Welfare (CZS) Našice, which initiated the proceedings as special
guardianship body, was not served with a summons to a hearing or with any of
the decisions in the case in which he was divested of parental rights over his minor
son. Mt. Močević was not summoned to any of the three scheduled and two
hearings held, in the case R1 Ob-18 / 2019-27, depriving him of the right to a fair
trial because he was not allowed to appear or argue in court. The final decision No.
15 R1 Ob-18 / 2019-27 of 17 July 2019, divesting him of parental care, was not
served on the father but was delivered to him electronically by the court in Našice
on 4 September 2020, upon his subsequent request made in August 2020, after Mr.
Močević was indirectly informed about the outcome of the proceedings.
 15

Mr. Močević has also been denied any contact with his children from a second
marriage who live in Zadar with their mother. In late December 2018, the mother
has barred him from any contact, even by phone with his sons than of age 3 and
10. Mr. Močevic has reported this violation of his right to maintain personal
relations and direct contact with him as a parent regularly protected both by the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 8-2 of the European
Convention on Human Rights. Article 95 of the Croatian Family Law stipulates
that "A parent who does not live with a child has the right and duty to have
personal relations with the child unless prohibited or restricted by a court order.”
Mr. Močević has both directly and through his attorneys informed the Family court
in Zadar and Center for social welfare about this unlawful conduct but both of them
failed to react or do anything to protect the rights of Mr. Močević and his children.

In May 2019, through his attorney, Mr. Dalibor Močević filed a petition to exclude
Zadar Center for Social Welfare from the divorce proceedings P Ob-196/18 because
of obvious doubts in its impartiality. Again, political and personal factors meddled
in his family problems.

His wife Ana Mocevic has recently been employed by the Zadar County
Development Agency for a new position as an expert associate on a contracted
project. The necessary conditions for employment in this position, according to the
portal zadra.hr-competitions, among other things, is a work experience on EU
projects of 3 years, which his wife did not have. The director of the Zadar County
Development Agency is Marina Vukovic-Dujmovic a prominent HDZ member and
also a member of the Governing Board of the Center for Social Welfare of Zadar. 8

Due to the relationship of a member of the governing Board of CSS Zadar and the
Head of the County Development Office with one party in the proceedings who is
employed without formal qualifications in the Agency managed by Ms. Marina
Vukovic-Dujmovic, the conduct of CSS Zadar which Ms. Vukovic-Dujmovic also
informally manages became extremely unprofessional and tendentious to the
detriment of Mr. Dalibor Močević as a counterpart to the proceedings, and even his
minor children for whose interests this Center is obliged to care, speak and care.
The children are completely deprived of contact with their father to which the
Center remains completely deaf even it received several to the submissions by
which Mr. Močević warned the Center and the court that contrary to the provisions
of the Family Law (Article 95), his wife prevents any contact with children, now
ages 11 and 4, from December 29th, 2018 onwards.

This was certainly done with impunity because Mrs. Ana Močević enjoys the
protection of her employer, from the management of the Center for Social Welfare,
which must first respond to such unlawful conduct by one of the parents. In 2019,
there were two further submissions to the court and the Social Welfare Center in
Zadar in writing regarding the problems of having contact with children, but there

8Web portal Zadra nova (htpps://www.zadra.hr) stranice tim i natjecaji. Web stranica CSS Zadar
(www.css-zadar.hr/ustrojstvo/)
 16

were no reactions that cast doubt on the impartiality of the Center which has a
significant role in the divorce proceedings as the expert and authority whose
opinions are the basis for the custody decision.

By information Mr. Močević acquired, Marina Vukovic-Dujmovic is a cousin of

previously mentioned Branko Ganzulić and therefore in kinship with Petar Šale.
Furthermore, the attorney at law representing Mrs. Ana Močević in the divorce
proceedings, Tihana Gregov was also connected to the suspicious death case of Mr.
Močević’s late mother in Zadar County Hospital in 2009. She allegedly represented
Zadar emergency ambulance services at the time of death of Mrs. Sofija Močević.
When Mr. Dalibor Močević approached her for consultation into the death of his
mother, she refused. Because of all these reasons, Mr. Močević filed a disciplinary
complaint against Mrs. Gregov to the Croatian Bar Association in 2019, but his
complaint was rejected without examination.

In November 2020, the Zadar court brought a divorce decision entrusting the
children to mother’s sole custody with complete disregard to father’s submissions
and facts presented in the case, and without giving merit to any of his allegations
of custodial misconduct by the Center for social welfare which was also ignored by
the court who did not decide on the case for over two years although the case of a
divorce involving minor children was legally urgent.

In the light of all the foregoing, Mr. Močević believes that there is clear evidence
of CSS Zadar's bias in the divorce proceedings, as well as a pattern of unlawful
conduct in favor of his wife, to the detriment of him and his children, based on his
ethnic origin.

Further observations

Mr. Močević points out that, in the absence of a decision in the KR-DO-405/10
criminal investigation case, within a reasonable time, Croatian authorities
violated the provision of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe. That
provision stipulates, inter alia, that to establish their civil rights and obligations
or in the case of the indictment for a criminal offense, everyone has the right to a
fair and public hearing within a reasonable period. The aforementioned principle
is also contained in Article 29 para. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia
(Official Gazette 41/01, consolidated text, 55/01-correction, hereinafter: the
Constitution), according to which everyone has the right to an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law to decide fairly and within a reasonable time
on his rights and obligations, or of suspicion or accusation of a criminal offense.
Mr. Močević was entitled to an investigation and a decision within a reasonable
time on the report he filed to the prosecutor about the suspicious death of his
mother and the threats he received by telephone so that the County Prosecutors
Office (ŽDO) should have brought a decision on these suspicions, either through
an indictment or a dismissal of allegations, in the proceedings he could actively
participate in. The preliminary investigation proceedings in the case KR-DO-
405/10 have not been concluded to this day Therefore when the criminal
 17

proceedings at the preliminary investigation stage lasted ten years, and, most
notably, where no investigative procedures whatsoever had been undertaken in
most of that time, Articles 2 and 14 of the United Nations International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights have been violated.

Mr. Močević was discriminated against because of his origin and nationality. He
was treated differently by the authorities than his mother's common-law husband,
Ante Radetić a Croatian national. Therefore, a refusal of the authorities to carry
on or conclude criminal proceedings into the death of his mother, her husband's
conduct, and telephone threats he received from his ex-wife, in our opinion amount
to a breach of the rights protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

By depriving him of his tenancy right in the apartment in Zadar, Ugljanska 6, and
the right to lease, Croatian courts had violated Mr. Močević’s right to respect his
home. Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR
in further text), requires that all State Parties among which is also Croatia to
respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions,
national or social origin, property, birth or another status.

As to the present case, it is undisputed that Mr. Močević had lived in the apartment
in question between 1972 and the beginning of 1994. In the domestic court cases,
the Government has not disputed that the apartment was Mr. Močević’s actual
place of residence. A person’s eviction also amounts to an interference with that
person’s right to respect for his or her home. By disputed decisions, Mr. Močević
was factually evicted from his home, together with his mother. Mr. Močević was
ordered to vacate the apartment in question by the national courts under Croatian
laws regulating the ownership, which allow an owner to seek repossession of his
or her property when the possessor has no legal grounds for possession. The
European Court of Human Rights has adopted several judgments against Croatia
on the ground that the national courts ordered person eviction solely because they
had no legal basis for occupying the apartments at issue, without having carried
out a proportionality test as to the measures taken against him (see, for example,
Ćosić v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, § 18, 15 January 2009; Brežec v. Croatia, no.
7177/10, § 40, 18 July 2013, etc). In circumstances where the national authorities,
in their decisions ordering and upholding Mr. Močević’s eviction, have not given
any explanation or put forward any arguments demonstrating that Mr. Močević’s
eviction was necessary, the State’s legitimate interest in being able to control its
property comes second to Mr. Močević’s right to respect for his home. Moreover,
where the State has not shown the necessity of Mr. Močević’s eviction to protect its
own property rights, the European Court in its well-established case-law places a
strong emphasis on the fact that no interests of other private parties are likewise
at stake.

Regarding the length of the inheritance proceedings no. O-314/2008, which was
brought before the Municipal Court in Zadar, the court or the notary public could
 18

not fail to deliver a decision since the statements of living inheritors and written
evidence from the inscription in the land register KO Smoković could establish the
existence of immovable property. In the present case, the state authorities violated
Mr. Močević's constitutional right to a decision by a legally established
independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable. Article 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that “All are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled
to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
any incitement to such discrimination”.

By decision of the Municipal Court in Našice to grant sole custody of his minor son
to his mother which was under treatment for alcoholism and borderline personality
disorder the Croatian authorities with Mr. Močevič’s right to respect for his family
life, as guaranteed by Article 8 § 2 of the European Convention. The human rights
of children and the standards to which all governments must aspire in realizing
these rights for all children are set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Convention entered into force on 2 September 1990 and has been ratified by
191 countries, including Croatia. The Convention spells out the basic human rights
that children everywhere – without discrimination – have: the right to survival; to
develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse, and
exploitation, etc. In the present case, the court didn't act in accordance with the
child's best interest, its decision was based on 18 months old report from the
psychiatric hospital that treated Mr. Močević’s common-law wife, and the disputed
procedure in whole was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons to justify
such interference in Mr. Močević's family life. Therefore the court's decision did not
correspond to any overriding requirement in the children’s best interests, on the
contrary, it endangered such interest, so the national authorities overstepped their
margin of appreciation on account of the decision to grant sole custody to a
mentally unstable person, thereby violating Mr. Močevićs’ rights under Articles 2
and 14 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also
the Article 26, of the same Covenant, that forbids any discrimination to the equal
protection of the law, based on national or social origin. The conduct of the Family
Court in Našice is also in complete breach of articles 2, 3, and 9 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child

Mr. Močević’s right to a fair trial was also violated because the court excluded him
from the majority of the custody trial, did not provide him with constitutional
guarantees of equality before courts and other state bodies, and his constant
chicanery by judge Ankica Wolf, attorney of CSS Našice and guardian for special
case attorney Matko Mamilović, only based on his ethnic origin, caused systematic
and continuous damage to the best interest of the child. In addition to this, the
expertise was entrusted, to an expert who is not specialized in children psychology,
despite Mr. Močević's arguments, and the court did not need to conduct a
psychiatric evaluation on the father which has no history of any mental or
psychiatric problems, as opposed to the mother whom the court entrusted sole
custody. In addition, Mr. Močević was discriminated against based on his job since
as a seaman he could not have had more frequent contact with the child, as well
as by birth and ethnic origin.
 19

In the divorce proceedings, P Ob-196/18 the Court in Zadar and Center for Social
Welfare are acting with obvious bias and prejudice to prevent him from having
regular contact with his children and his wife, to uproot him completely from the
place of his birth he was forced to leave in 2012, being evicted from his apartment
in Zadar, threatened and feeling generally and legally insecure, without the
authorities doing anything effectively to protect him and his family. These troubles
which have an apparent personal and political connotation continue unhindered
by domestic and international legal obligations every country, especially the one
that is a member of the EU has towards its citizens, and that is to protect their
home and personal life, property, and security regardless of their ethnical origin,
religion or nationality. These obligations in the cases of Mr. Dalobor Močević have
not only been unfulfilled by the Republic of Croatia but actively undermined.

Regarding the removal of parental care rights Mr. Močević suffered in 2019, the
relevant considerations to be weighed by a local authority in reaching decisions on
children in its care must perforce include the views and interests of the natural
parents. The decision-making process must, therefore, be such as to ensure that
their views and interests are made known to and duly taken into account by the
local authority and that they can exercise in due time any remedies available to
them. Therefore, it has to be determined whether, having regard to the particular
circumstances of the case and notably the serious nature of the decisions to be
taken, the parents have been involved in the decision-making process, seen as a
whole, to a degree sufficient to provide them with the requisite protection of their
interests. If they have not, there will have been a failure to respect their family life
and the interference resulting from the decision will not be capable being regarded
as necessary within the meaning of Article 8, what exactly happened to Mr. Dalibor
Močević before the Croatian courts.

As a member of the EU and OSCE, we strongly believe that Croatia must do much
more to strengthen democracy and respect minority rights, which it has not done
in the past.