5.  The applicant was married to J.G. and on 13 September 1991 their daughter S. was born. On 22 August 2001 J.G. instituted divorce proceedings against the applicant in the Maribor District Court and sought full custody of their daughter and an interim order awarding her custody pending the outcome of the main proceedings. 6.  On 3 January 2002 the applicant brought a counterclaim seeking custody of S. and child maintenance. He also requested that an interim order be adopted granting him contact rights. 7.  On 27 March 2002, having obtained two reports on the family situation prepared by the Maribor Social Work Centre and conducted two hearings, the court issued an interim decision by which J.G. was provisionally granted custody pending the outcome of the proceedings. 8.  On 21 May 2002 the court rendered a judgment granting the divorce. J.G. was awarded full custody of S. and the applicant was ordered to pay child maintenance. The court took into consideration, inter alia, the wishes of S., who was ten years old at the time, to continue living with her mother but remain in contact with the applicant. As the applicant and J.G. had meanwhile come to an agreement concerning contact rights (see paragraph 26 below), the court refused to make a decision in this regard. 9.  On 20 July 2002 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court against the part of the judgment concerning child custody and the refusal to make an order in respect of his contact rights. 10.  On 25 February 2003 the Maribor Higher Court informed the applicant that the first-instance court had been asked to issue a supplementary judgment concerning his counterclaim. 11.  On 12 March 2003 the Maribor District Court issued a supplementary judgment and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim. 12.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant appealed against the supplementary judgment and sought an interim order granting him provisional custody in respect of S. on the basis that J.G. had allegedly been preventing him from having contact with S. since 23 March 2002. 13.  On 12 June 2003 the Maribor District Court rejected the application for an interim order. In its decision it referred to S.’s written statement expressing her wish to stay living with her mother. As to the contact schedule, it further recalled that contact had been arranged by an enforceable agreement of 29 January 2002 and noted that the applicant could apply for enforcement of the said agreement if J.G. had prevented him from seeing the child. 14.  On 18 July 2003 the applicant lodged an objection against the decision of 12 June 2003, alleging that the court had failed to sufficiently establish the facts of the case and had neglected the best interests of the child. 15.  On 24 September 2003 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal in part as regards child maintenance for the period from August 2001 to May 2002, the amount of which had been set in the decision of 21 May 2002, and remitted the case for re-examination. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal. 16.  On 22 December 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court, which was rejected on 4 November 2004. 17.  Meanwhile, on 3 June 2004, the applicant sought the reopening of the proceedings. 18.  On 15 July 2004, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2005. 19.  On 18 July 2005 the Maribor District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the reopening of the proceedings. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Maribor Higher Court on 26 January 2006. Subsequently, on 2 March 2006, the applicant lodged a request with the General Public Prosecutor’s Office, asking it to make an extraordinary appeal (request for protection of legality). 20.  On 21 July 2006, he lodged a motion to change the venue and, in the alternative, sought the withdrawal of the presiding judge. Both of these motions were dismissed. 21.  On 27 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal. On 4 April 2007 he was informed that a hearing had been scheduled in his case for 9 May 2007. At this hearing, J.G. withdrew the contested part of her claim for child maintenance and consequently, on 15 May 2007, the court concluded the proceedings. 22.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant made altogether five motions for withdrawal of the judges presiding in his case, one of which was upheld. 23.  On 27 July 2001 the applicant went to a police station to report the kidnapping of S. The police referred him to the Maribor Social Work Centre, where he reported that his daughter had been taken by J.G. from the summer camp and that they had not returned home. The applicant also contacted the media and announced that S. had been kidnapped and taken abroad. On 8 August the Social Work Centre received a letter from J.G. informing them that she and S. had moved to a safe house. 24.  On 23 August 2001 a social worker assigned to the case conducted an interview with S., who was upset that her picture had been published in a magazine. On 30 August another interview was conducted with S., who was still anxious about the situation. 25.  On 5 September 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Maribor Social Work Centre, seeking a formal decision setting up a contact schedule and the disqualification from the proceedings of the social worker assigned to the case. He sought contact with S. every Tuesday afternoon and every other weekend. 26.  Following a mediation process, on 29 January 2002 the applicant and J.G. reached an agreement on contact rights at the Maribor Social Work Centre. Contact between the applicant and S. would be allowed every Friday after school until seven o’clock in the evening and every other weekend. 27.  On 23 March 2002 the applicant and S. had an argument, after which she left before the arranged time and subsequently refused to have contact with the applicant for the following two months. 28.  On 22 May 2002 the applicant requested the enforcement of the contact agreement. On 18 August 2002 his request was rejected by the Maribor Administrative Unit on the grounds that the agreement did not include an enforcement clause and that it failed to specify certain details concerning the time of contact. In any event, the conditions for enforcement were not met, as the applicant had failed to comply with the dates and place of contact specified in the agreement. 29.  On an unspecified date the applicant again requested the enforcement of the contact agreement for non-compliance on 5 April 2002. The request was dismissed on 30 September 2002, as the applicant had failed to meet S. in front of her school, as specified in the agreement. 30.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant once again requested the enforcement of the contact agreement for non-compliance on 19 April 2002. On 4 March 2003 the request was upheld and J.G. was ordered to comply with the terms of the agreement, subject to a fine of 15,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (approximately 62.6 euros (EUR)). 31.  At some point between June and August 2002, contact between the applicant and S. was resumed, although not in accordance with the terms of the contact agreement. 32.  Meanwhile, on 19 June 2002, J.G. lodged a request for a new contact schedule with the Maribor Social Work Centre. She submitted that contact had been ceased at the request of S. due to the applicant’s unkind and abusive behaviour. J.G. also explained that S. was regularly visiting an outpatient child psychiatric clinic, where several interviews had also been conducted with herself and the applicant. On 28 June 2002 the Maribor Social Work Centre received a report from the outpatient clinic, from which it emerged that S. was distrustful of the applicant, while he was as yet unable to approach his daughter in a constructive manner. It was recommended that contact be resumed in a less defined manner and that S.’s wishes be taken into account in order for her to rebuild trust in her father. 33.  On 12 August 2002 an interview was conducted with S. and J.G., in which S. declared that she wished to maintain contact with the applicant, but resented his lack of affection, criticism, hostility to J.G., against whom he had also lodged a number of criminal complaints, and his inflexible approach to contact. She agreed to have contact with the applicant once a month and J.G. agreed with her suggestion. The applicant was willing to accept a less defined approach in order for contact to resume on a regular basis. 34.  Subsequently, an expert panel was appointed by the Maribor Social Work Centre, which on 16 September 2002 recommended that S.’s suggestions should be taken into consideration and possibly, subsequently, developed into more frequent schedule. 35.  After having conducted an oral hearing on 25 October 2002, on 15 November 2002 the Maribor Social Work Centre issued an order granting the applicant one four-hour contact session every month, which would take place on Wednesdays and would be shortened if S. had choir practice on that day. The Centre, relying on the opinions of S.’s therapist and the expert panel, also took into consideration S.’s negative attitude towards contact with the applicant. 36.  On 27 November 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision to the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs (hereinafter “the Ministry”). 37.  On 17 February 2003 the applicant lodged a request with the Maribor Social Work Centre for a revised contact schedule, as he had not yet received a response to the appeal of 27 November 2002. He also sought to have the decision of 15 November 2002 enforced, alleging that J.G. had failed to comply with it. The request for a revised contact schedule was rejected on 24 March 2003. The applicant appealed to the Ministry. 38.  In addition, on 30 July 2003 the applicant lodged a further request with the Maribor Social Work Centre, seeking a change in the contact schedule due to changes in his and S.’s availability. The request was rejected on 11 August 2003. 39.  On 11 July 2003 the Ministry dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the decisions of the Maribor Social Work Centre of 15 November 2002 and 24 March 2003. The Ministry considered that the decision of 15 November 2002, which had taken into consideration the sound wishes of S., who had shown herself to be capable of understanding the implications of her opinions, had been correct. The appeal against the decision of 24 March 2003 was dismissed because the applicant had lodged a new request while his first appeal had been pending. 40.  Meanwhile, on 6 February 2003, the applicant brought an administrative action before the Administrative Court, complaining that his appeal against the decision of 15 November 2002 had not been decided within the prescribed sixty-day time-limit. Subsequently, on 6 August 2003, he amended his complaint and sought to have the decision of the Ministry, which he considered flawed and unlawful, set aside and the case remitted for fresh consideration. 41.  On 16 March 2004 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, considering that the complaint regarding the failure to comply with the prescribed time limit was devoid of purpose, as the decision had already been adopted. As regards the substantive errors alleged by the applicant, the court upheld the decision of the administrative authorities. It noted that a child’s negative attitude to parental contact could not constitute a decisive element in establishing a contact schedule, but pointed out that pursuant to the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, children having sufficient understanding had to be informed of and consulted in proceedings affecting them. 42.  The applicant’s subsequent appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13 January 2005. He also brought a constitutional appeal, which was dismissed on 21 April 2005. The Constitutional Court held that the challenged decisions had primarily been motivated by the best interests of the child. 43.  In the meantime, between 11 July 2003 and 10 November 2004, the Maribor Administrative Unit, upon the applicant’s request, ordered the enforcement of the decision of the Maribor Social Work Centre of 15 November 2002 on four occasions. In its first order of 11 July 2003 issued with regard to the contact session missed on 1 January 2003, the Maribor Administrative Unit also warned J.G. that in the event of further non-compliance with the terms of the contact schedule she would be fined. Pursuant to the first of the subsequent three orders issued on 24 August 2003 (with regard to the session missed on 7 July 2004) J.G. was fined SIT 15,000 (approximately EUR 62.6), and pursuant to each of the next two issued on 7 September 2004 and 10 November 2004, respectively (with regard to the sessions missed on 4 August 2004 and 1 September 2004), SIT 16,000 (approximately EUR 66.8). 44.  On 15 September 2003 the applicant lodged another request with the Maribor Social Work Centre, seeking a change to the contact schedule. He sought more frequent contact with S. and the modification of the decision of 15 November 2002 so as to allow contact on a day other than Wednesday. 45.  On 23 October 2003 S. was interviewed and expressed a negative attitude towards contact with the applicant. S., J.G. and the applicant were also interviewed by the expert panel appointed by the Maribor Social Work Centre. Despite an explanation being given that parental contact was to her benefit, S. insisted that it was the last time she would abide by any schedule concerning her father’s contact rights. The expert panel, observing that contact with both parents, in so far as possible, was in the best interests of the child, proposed that visits lasting two hours be resumed twice a month, with a competent professional supervising visits in the first three months. Later on, visits could take place once a week. 46.  At the request of the official in charge of the hearing, S. was also interviewed by a psychologist, who in her report supported the idea that the initial contact sessions be supervised by a competent professional, but suggested that contact should subsequently continue on a voluntary basis and that it should depend on the quality of the relationship between father and daughter, which would be assessed during the supervised contact sessions. 47.  Following the psychological assessment, which was submitted on 15 March 2004, a hearing was scheduled for 6 April 2004, but was later adjourned until 22 April 2004 at the request of J.G. Subsequently, the hearing was cancelled due to the case being transferred to the Celje Social Work Centre (see paragraphs 50-52 below). 48.  The two contact sessions between the applicant and S. that took place in April and May 2004 generated more conflict, and on 5 May they came to the Maribor Social Work Centre to inform the social workers that their contact session that day would be interrupted, as S. wanted to go home. In July 2004, S. refused to have contact with the applicant. 49.  Alongside the administrative proceedings, over the period from April 2003 to January 2004 the applicant, J.G. and S. were engaged in counselling at the Maribor Social Work Centre. The applicant, complaining about S.’s negative attitude to him, urged the Social Work Centre to set up regular contact between himself and his daughter and to engage the latter in some form of counselling. As the involvement of a psychologist in the counselling process did not result in any improvement in their relationship, it was later suggested that contact sessions supervised by a third party be resumed.
(b)  The transfer of the case to the Celje Social Work Centre 50.  On 14 August 2002 the applicant asked for the case to be transferred to a different social work centre, claiming that the employees of the Maribor Social Work Centre were abusing their positions and contributing to S. becoming alienated from him. Dissatisfied with the manner in which his case was being handled, the applicant also brought criminal complaints against six employees of the Centre and five criminal complaints against the director of the Centre, all of which were subsequently rejected. Moreover, he sought the disqualification of some of the employees who had been working on the case and the institution of disciplinary action against them, while a number of social workers assigned to the case also withdrew from the proceedings of their own volition. 51.  The applicant also twice requested that the Ministry carry out an audit of the Maribor Social Work Centre. The Ministry acted on one of his requests and carried out an audit, the report of which was provided to the applicant on 26 March 2004. The Ministry established a number of procedural irregularities in the proceedings conducted by the Centre, including the fact that the contact agreement of 29 January 2002 had included neither all the necessary elements nor an enforceability clause, and thus could not be enforced. It was also found that the parents had not been engaged in appropriate counselling activities provided by the Centre and that J.G.’s request for less frequent contact, which had been motivated by the applicant’s aggression, should have been properly evaluated, and that in conducting that evaluation the applicant should have had a more open opportunity to present his views and an assessment should have been made of whether S. had in fact been exposed to any aggression on the part of the applicant. On the other hand, the report found that the Centre had not aided and abetted the kidnapping of S., as the applicant had alleged. 52.  The applicant’s request for a transfer of the case was rejected by the Ministry on 10 July 2003 due to his lack of standing, but this decision was eventually set aside by the Administrative Court. Nevertheless, on 10 March 2004 the Maribor Social Work Centre asked the Ministry to transfer the case to a different social work centre due to the applicant’s apparent lack of confidence in their work. On 14 April 2004 the Ministry transferred the case to the Celje Social Work Centre.
(c)  Proceedings conducted by the Celje Social Work Centre 53.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant attended a meeting at the Celje Social Work Centre, at which he was informed of the different possibilities for arranging contact with S. He insisted that the issue of contact should be settled in the administrative proceedings, and not through counselling and assistance. On 9 July 2004 an expert panel appointed by the Celje Social Work Centre proposed that contact supervised by a competent professional should proceed after the summer holidays and that a psychologist should be appointed to assess S.’s emotional and behavioural state and possible trauma in relation to her parents. On 15 July 2004 the social worker assigned to the case visited S. at home. She stated that she did not wish to have any contact with the applicant for at least two years and that she also did not wish to have any more contact with the social workers or other professionals involved in the case. Nevertheless, S., the applicant and J.G. attended an interview with the psychologist, M.B. In her report of 6 November 2004, M.B. established that it would not be possible, at that time, to achieve a balance between S.’s desire not to see her father and the preservation of an emotional connection with him. The level of conflict between the two was so deeply rooted that it was not possible to expect any closeness and confidence to develop between them. The applicant was dissatisfied with the expert report and subsequently requested that another expert be appointed. 54.  Meanwhile, on 11 October 2004 the applicant asked the Celje Social Work Centre to issue an interim order amending the contact schedule so that contact would take place on Mondays or Tuesdays. The request was dismissed on 25 October 2004, but this decision was set aside by the Ministry on 18 February 2005 and remitted for fresh consideration. 55.  On 16 November 2004 the members of the expert panel, relying on M.B.’s expert report, recommended that contact between the applicant and S. be suspended for at least one year. The panel observed that S. had not benefited from forced contact with the applicant; she had also been exposed to serious emotional stress as a result of her involvement in several sets of proceedings and the media coverage that had taken place. All this had had harmful effects on her, and the panel considered that if this pressure continued, S.’s emotional and personal development might stagnate. 56.  On 8 December 2004 the Celje Social Work Centre conducted an oral hearing, at which the applicant explained his position at length and criticised the employees of the Centre. M.B., who was also interviewed, explained that in her view the statements made by S. during the interview she had conducted had not been influenced by a third party. Following the hearing it was decided on 10 December 2004 that a new expert report would be obtained. However, as the applicant had objected to paying in full an advance on the expert’s fees, which he had initially undertaken to bear the cost of, a new expert was not appointed straight away. The applicant’s objection was subsequently dismissed by the Ministry on 17 February 2005. 57.  Meanwhile, at the next oral hearing on 10 January 2005 the applicant sought the disqualification of the social worker assigned to the case, which caused the hearing to be suspended. The application for disqualification was dismissed on 27 January 2005 by the Social Work Centre and, upon an appeal by the applicant, on 17 August 2005 by the Ministry. On 27 October 2005 the applicant challenged the latter decision before the Administrative Court. 58.  On 11 March 2005 J.G. informed the Celje Social Work Centre that the applicant had missed his last three contact sessions with S. The applicant, on the other hand, asked for the contact schedule to be enforced, making reference to the missed contact session on 2 March 2005. The Social Work Centre established that the applicant had in fact unsuccessfully attempted to meet S. and on 19 April 2005 fined J.G. SIT 17,000 (approximately EUR 71). 59.  On 22 March 2005, the Celje Social Work Centre issued an interim order prohibiting contact between the applicant and S. In its order, it took into consideration the panel’s opinion of 16 November 2004, the expert opinion of the psychologist and the corroborating statements made by the applicant, J.G. and S. to the effect that S. generally did not wish to have contact with the applicant. It appears that from that time onwards, the applicant and S. only maintained occasional contact by email. 60.  On 27 March 2005 the applicant appealed to the Ministry. He complained that the proceedings had been too long and unfair. He also claimed that they should have been dealt with by the courts in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 April 2003 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). 61.  On 1 August 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings with the Administrative Court on account of the Ministry’s failure to decide on the appeal within the prescribed sixty-day time-limit. He also contested the order of 22 March 2005 (see paragraph 59 above) and alleged that his procedural rights had been breached in the proceedings conducted by the Celje Social Work Centre. 62.  On 17 August 2005 the Ministry dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Although it observed that the applicant had expressed a desire to improve his relationship with S. and that he had been willing to seek expert help to do so, it concurred with the Celje Social Work Centre that S. was mature enough to express her own opinion and understand its consequences. The Ministry considered that the Centre’s interim order had been made in the best interests of the child. As regards the applicant’s complaint that the case should have been transferred to the courts, as provided for by an amendment to the Marriage and Family Relations Act (hereinafter “the MFR Act” and “the Amendment” as appropriate), the Ministry explained that pursuant to the transitional provisions of the Act, proceedings which, as in the applicant’s case, had been instituted before the Amendment had entered into force were to continue to be conducted by social work centres. 63.  On 25 August 2005 two employees of the Celje Social Work Centre visited S. and J.G. at home. S. stated that she was relieved about the prohibition of contact between her and the applicant. 64.  The oral hearing scheduled for 5 October 2005 was adjourned at the applicant’s request. It was rescheduled for 14 November 2005, but was once again adjourned on 27 October 2005 due to the applicant’s repeated application for disqualification of the social worker assigned to the case. Subsequently, the social worker in question also sought to withdraw from the proceedings. However, on 5 December 2005 the applicant withdrew his application for disqualification and she resumed working on his case. 65.  Meanwhile, on 16 October 2005 the applicant extended his complaint about the Ministry’s failure to decide on his appeal (see paragraph 61 above) to the decision actually taken by the Ministry on 17 August 2005 (see paragraph 62 above). He complained about the prohibition of contact with S. and stressed that, in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 April 2003, the courts, not the administrative authorities, should have dealt with his case. 66.  On 13 June 2006 the Administrative Court joined the appeal against the Ministry’s decision relating to the disqualification of a social worker (see paragraph 57 above) and the appeal against the Ministry’s decision relating to the interim order of the Celje Social Work Centre (see paragraphs 61 and 65 above) and dismissed them both. Specifically, as regards the challenged interim order, the court explained that it had been made on the basis of the case-file documents and pursuant to the decision of the Celje Social Work Centre that it was necessary to provisionally settle certain questions before the adoption of a final decision on the matter, as S. had clearly stated that she did not wish to have any contact with the applicant. The court concluded that in adopting the interim order, the administrative authorities had acted in S.’s best interests. As regards the applicant’s complaint that the administrative authorities should have relinquished the case to the jurisdiction of the courts, the Administrative Court concurred with the Ministry that proceedings instituted before the entry into force of the Amendment were to continue to be conducted by social work centres. 67.  On 20 July 2006 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. On 24 March 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 68.  In the meantime, the Celje Social Work Centre continued the examination of the case and appointed two psychologists one after another to evaluate the relationship between the applicant and S. The first psychologist stepped down after J.G. declined to allow him to conduct an interview with S. at his place of work, while the second psychologist stepped down after the applicant failed to keep his appointment on three occasions. The Celje Social Work Centre again relied on the opinion of the expert panel of 16 November 2004, and, following an interview with S. on 8 June 2006 in which she declared that her relationship with her father had not improved and again refused to have any contact with him, on 19 July 2006 issued a decision prohibiting contact between the applicant and S. 69.  On 2 August 2006 the applicant appealed to the Ministry. He averred, among other things, that the expert panel had met for the last time nearly two years before the decision had been issued and that he had not been summoned to meet the second of the appointed psychologists. 70.  On 19 March 2007 the Ministry set aside the Celje Social Work Centre’s decision of 19 July 2006. The Ministry found that the Centre had failed to examine the possibility of the applicant and S. to re-establish contact before deciding to prohibit it. It also found that the adjourned hearing of 10 January 2005 had never been resumed, which amounted to a violation of procedure. Finally, the Ministry decided that the case was to be relinquished to the jurisdiction of a competent district court, as provided for in the MFR Act as amended by the Amendment. 71.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant twice sought to have the competent ministries conduct an audit of the Celje Social Work Centre. One of these audits revealed certain irregularities in the keeping of records, which were subsequently rectified. In addition, the applicant sought to have the Social Services Inspection Agency (operating under the authority of the Ministry) conduct an audit on four occasions. After having received replies from the Celje Social Work Centre, three of these requests were dismissed, while on one occasion an audit was carried out and some irregularities were established which were subsequently rectified. As in the proceedings conducted by the Maribor Social Work Centre, the applicant was dissatisfied with the handling of his case, which he expressed in a number of letters and emails and in person. In addition to seeking the disqualification of the social worker assigned to the case, he brought a criminal complaint against the director of the Social Work Centre, which was, however, rejected.
(d) The transfer of the case to the competent court and the ensuing non-contentious proceedings 72.  Further to the Ministry’s decision (see paragraph 70 above) on 23 March 2007 the case was transferred to the Maribor District Court. 73.  On 17 April 2007 also the applicant lodged a motion before the Maribor District Court for a contact schedule to be established and sought an interim order granting him contact with S. once a week. 74.  On 4 June 2007 J.G. lodged a written submission in which she requested that contact not be allowed, as S. had clearly stated that she did not wish to have any contact with the applicant. She also sought to have an interim order adopted to that effect. 75.  On 11 June 2007 a hearing was held during which the court interviewed S. Moreover, the court sought to obtain an opinion of the Maribor Social Work Centre; however, the applicant lodged a motion for the disqualification of the social worker assigned to the case. This motion having been dismissed by the Ministry on 11 September 2007, the centre eventually submitted a report, which, however, did not provide a new viewpoint on the case, as S. had refused to be interviewed. 76.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 2007 the Maribor District Court upheld J.G.’s motion and issued an interim order pending the outcome of the main proceedings. Having examined the case-file documents and interviewed S., the court held that she was not ready to have contact with the applicant and was rather hostile towards him; consequently, it ruled against allowing contact. 77.  On 17 July 2007 the applicant objected to that interim order. 78.  On 27 August 2007 a hearing was held in the presence of the applicant and J.G. The applicant requested that a psychologist be appointed to assess whether S. was suffering from parental alienation syndrome. The court acceded to the applicant’s request and the hearing was adjourned pending the expert’s report. The applicant undertook to pay the advance on the expert’s fees, which he failed to do. 79.  On 14 September 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal, which was resolved by issuing a notice of further procedural acts to be taken. 80.  On 27 November 2007 the court held a hearing and upheld the applicant’s objection. It set aside the interim order issued on 5 July 2007, finding that the applicant was not a threat to S. and that there was no need for contact between them to cease entirely. As a result, it dismissed both motions for an interim order (see paragraphs 73 and 74 above) and decided that a psychologist should determine whether relations between the applicant and S. could be re-established. 81.  On 11 December 2007 J.G. lodged an appeal against the dismissal of her motion for an interim order, which was dismissed on 16 April 2008. 82.  On 13 February 2008 E.G., the psychologist appointed by the court, submitted a report in which he noted that the applicant had been invited to an interview three times, but had failed to attend any of the interviews. E.G. further observed that during the three years in which the applicant and S. had not had contact, she had built her life without the presence of her father and did not miss him. The expert assessed S.’s rejection of the applicant as genuine and not a result of any outside influence. 83.  On 3 March 2008 the applicant lodged a written submission in which he contested E.G.’s report. He explained that he had been unable to attend the first two interviews because he had been unwell, and that he had never received a third invitation. 84.  On 14 March 2008 the court rendered a decision granting the expert’s fee. The applicant appealed, alleging that the expert report was incomplete, as he had not been interviewed by E.G. 85.  The judge in the case asked E.G. to interview the applicant and submit an additional report, to which E.G. explained that interviewing the applicant would not change his conclusions. 86.  Further to that opinion, the applicant filed several motions in which he sought to have the expert released from his duties and addressed four requests to the Ministry of Justice, asking it to order his removal from the register of experts. He also applied to the court for a reimbursement of the advance payment of the expert’s fees he had made on 14 March 2008. 87.  Meanwhile, as the court insisted on the applicant being interviewed, the expert again invited him to attend an interview on 4 July 2008, but the applicant refused to attend, considering that the request was unreasonable. 88.  On 10 September 2008 the Maribor District Court decided not to set up a contact schedule, having regard to S.’s wishes and the expert report prepared by E.G. In the light of the long absence of any contact between father and daughter, the court further decided that there was no reason to prohibit contact between them. Thus, it dismissed both the applicant’s and J.G.’s motions (see paragraphs 73 and 74 above). The applicant appealed against that decision. 89.  On 24 September 2008 the court issued a decision granting the fees for the additional expert report. The applicant also appealed against that decision. 90.  On 4 December 2008 the Maribor Higher Court modified the decisions of 14 March 2008 and 24 September 2008, rejecting the expert’s application for his fees to be paid, as he had failed to compile a report in line with the court’s request. Consequently, the court also set aside the decision rejecting the applicant’s motion for a contact schedule with S. to be set up. 91.  Further to that decision, on 14 January 2009, the applicant again applied to the Maribor District Court for a reimbursement of his advance payment of the expert’s fees. On 9 March 2009 the advance payment was returned to the applicant. 92.  On 25 February 2009 the applicant withdrew his application for a contact schedule in respect of S. to be established. The court issued a decision terminating the proceedings on 10 April 2009. 93.  On an undetermined date, the applicant reported the allegedly corrupt practices of the Maribor District Court with regard to the payment of the expert’s fees in the child contact proceedings (see paragraphs 84 and 89 above) to the Corruption Prevention Commission (hereinafter the “CPC”). On 23 April 2009 the CPC adopted an opinion establishing that the court had breached its obligation to exercise due diligence by enabling E.G. to obtain an unlawful benefit. Further to that opinion, the applicant again unsuccessfully sought to have the Ministry of Justice order E.G.’s removal from the register of experts. He also asked for the question of the potential liability of the judge deciding the case to be examined. On 4 June 2009 the president of the Maribor District Court informed the applicant that no irregularities had been established regarding the work of the judge.