6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Obrenovac. 7.  In 1994 the applicant married D.S. (“the respondent”). Their daughters A and B (“the children”) were born in 1996 and 1998, respectively. 8.  In April 2003 the applicant moved, together with the children, from Pirot to her parents’ house in Obrenovac. 9.  On 7 April 2003 the applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Pirot, seeking dissolution of her marriage, sole custody of the children and child maintenance. The applicant also requested interim custody of the children until the conclusion of the civil proceedings. 10.  On 14 August 2003 the respondent took the children back to Pirot. 11.  On 5 September 2003 the Municipal Court granted the interim custody order sought by the applicant. 12.  On 26 December 2003 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Pirot quashed this decision. 13.  On 13 July 2004 the Municipal Court again granted the interim custody sought and, in so doing, specifically ordered the respondent to hand over the children to the applicant pending the final outcome of the civil proceedings. 14.  On 4 August 2004 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of this decision. 15.  On 15 September 2004 the Municipal Court’s decision of 13 July 2004 was upheld by the District Court. 16.  In the meantime, on 30 August 2004, a bailiff, several police officers, a representative of the Social Care Centre and the applicant all came to the respondent’s home, requesting that the children be surrendered. The respondent, however, apparently refused to comply with this request and was thus temporarily restrained. The children, who were then handed over to the applicant, started crying and clung on to the respondent. 17.  On 5 November 2004, the Municipal Court terminated the enforcement proceedings since the children had objected to being reunited with the applicant and the applicant herself had failed to “take them forcibly”. 18.  On 22 November 2004 the Municipal Court quashed this decision. 19.  On 14 April 2005 the applicant requested the effective enforcement of the interim custody order adopted on 13 July 2004. 20.  On the same date, the Municipal Court ruled that the respondent was to be given three days to comply with this order voluntarily and added that, should he fail to do so, he would have to pay a fine in the amount 150,000 Dinars (“RSD”), at that time approximately 1,740 Euros (“EUR”). 21.  On 28 June 2005 the Municipal Court in another formation quashed the fine imposed, but upheld the remainder of this decision. 22.  On 5 October 2005 the Municipal Court again ruled that the respondent was to comply with the interim custody order within three days, but noted that the subsequent fine, if needed, would instead be RSD 5,000, at that time approximately EUR 58. 23.  On 11 November 2005 the respondent appeared before the Municipal Court with the children and his lawyer, without any prior notice having been given to the applicant or the court itself. In these circumstances, the Municipal Court was unable to summon the applicant, while her lawyer had already been engaged on other pressing business. The children stated that they wanted to stay with the respondent and the Social Care Centre, for its part, refused to participate in applicant’s absence. 24.  On 18 January 2006 the Municipal Court amended its decision of 5 October 2005, repealing the fine “because the respondent had displayed an intention to comply with the interim custody order voluntarily”. 25.  On 7 February 2006 the Municipal Court adjourned a pre-scheduled custody transfer since the respondent, though duly summoned, had failed to appear in person. 26.  The interim custody order of 13 July 2004 became irrelevant on 2 March 2006, which is when the civil court judgment became final (see paragraphs 30 and 31 below). 27.  On 23 December 2004 the Municipal Court dissolved the applicant’s marriage, granted her sole custody of the children and specified the respondent’s access rights. 28.  On 3 March 2005 the District Court partly quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial. 29.  It would appear that the Municipal Court thereafter held nine hearings and obtained an expert opinion from the Social Care Centre, confirming that the applicant should be granted custody. 30.  On 26 October 2005 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant. She was granted sole custody and child maintenance, while the respondent obtained extensive access rights and was ordered to surrender the children “within a period of 15 days of the date when this judgment becomes final”. 31.  On 2 March 2006 the District Court upheld the Municipal Court’s judgment on appeal. 32.  On 11 April 2006 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the above final judgment. In particular, the respondent was obliged to pay a fine should he fail to surrender the children within three days as of the date of receipt of this order. 33.  On 12 May 2006 the respondent requested that the enforcement be postponed in view of the fact that the school year had not yet ended. 34.  On 5 June 2006 the District Court upheld the enforcement order of 11 April 2006. 35.  On 29 June 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the respondent’s request of 12 May 2006, but gave him another three days to surrender the children. 36.  On 17 July 2006 the applicant sent another request to the Municipal Court, seeking effective enforcement of the final judgment in question. 37.  On 24 July 2006 the Municipal Court ordered the respondent to pay a fine in the amount of RSD 150,000. 38.  On 13 November 2006 the District Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. 39.  On 27 November 2006 the Municipal Court held a hearing. On this occasion the respondent stated that he was willing to comply with the final custody judgment rendered in favour of the applicant but noted that the children themselves did not want to live with her. The applicant then proposed that the transfer of custody be carried out immediately and observed that the best place for so doing was the Social Care Centre. The respondent, however, refused to bring the children to the centre, but apparently accepted to facilitate the transfer at his own home. The applicant, in response, urged the court to fine the respondent in order to compel him to surrender the children in accordance with the procedure provided by law. Ultimately, the court accepted this motion and ordered the respondent to pay a fine in the amount of RSD 150,000. 40.  On 4 June 2007 this decision was upheld by the District Court. 41.  The hearing scheduled for 28 September 2007 was adjourned by the Municipal Court because the respondent had not been duly summoned. 42.  On 18 October 2007 the Municipal Court adjourned another hearing. It noted that the respondent, though duly summoned, had failed to appear and, that, given the respondent’s uncooperative attitude, the Social Care Centre had not been able to provide an opinion on how exactly the transfer of custody should be carried out. 43.  On 5 November 2007, 9 November 2007, 13 November 2007 and 19 November 2007, respectively, the applicant and her children were able to meet at the premises of the Social Care Centre. These reunions were very successful and the children had “accepted the applicant despite having had no contact with her for a long period of time”. The Social Care Centre nevertheless noted that the children were not yet fully prepared for the transfer of custody and recommended that this process be gradual. 44.  It was further decided that the children would spend the weekend of 23 November 2007 with the applicant, but this apparently never came to pass because of the respondent’s unwillingness to cooperate. 45.  On 4 December 2007 the Municipal Court seems to have decided against the previously scheduled forcible transfer of custody. Instead, it requested additional assistance from the Social Care Centre. 46.  On 4 February 2008 the Municipal Court scheduled the forcible transfer of custody for 21 February 2008. 47.  On 21 February 2008 the Municipal Court heard the children in person. Both stated that they would like to maintain contacts with the applicant but would prefer to continue living with the respondent. 48.  On the same date the Municipal Court decided to stay the enforcement procedure (prekine postupak oduzimanja dece) until one of the parties seeks its resumption. It did so based on an agreement reached between the parties and ordered that the applicant be allowed to meet with the children. The court further observed, inter alia, that the applicant could already have taken custody of the children but had apparently refrained from doing so because of their anticipated reaction. 49.  The applicant met with the children on 29 February 2008, 3 March 2008 and 10 March 2008. 50.  On 21 March 2008 and 3 April 2008 the applicant and the respondent, respectively, requested the resumption of the enforcement procedure. 51.  On 2 April 2008 the Municipal Court scheduled the forcible transfer of custody for 17 April 2008. 52.  On 17 April 2008 a representative of the Social Care Centre stated, before the Municipal Court, that the children should be surrendered to the applicant since they have had enough time to re-establish contact with her. The children themselves declared that they would like to stay with the respondent and continue seeing the applicant. The judge then removed the respondent and the parties’ lawyers from the courtroom, thus facilitating an informal conversation between the children and the applicant in the presence of the Social Care Centre’s representative. Approximately one hour later the hearing recommenced. One of the children stated that she still wanted to stay with the respondent, while the other “did not know what to say”. The applicant thus proposed that no physical transfer of custody be carried out immediately, suggesting instead that further meetings between her and the children be scheduled. The judge then decided that the children should be physically handed over to the applicant. Ultimately, however, following the children’s protests and the applicant’s repeated request to the effect that additional preparatory meetings be held first, the judge scheduled several such meetings and declared the enforcement procedure terminated. 53.  On 26 April 2008 and 4 May 2008 the children met with the applicant, but have apparently continued living with the respondent thereafter. 54.  On 8 March 2004 the Military Court (Vojni sud) in Belgrade found the respondent, an army officer, guilty of parental child abduction and sentenced him to six months in prison, suspended for one year. On 26 June 2004 the Supreme Military Court (Vrhovni vojni sud) upheld this judgment on appeal. 55.  On 26 December 2007 the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Opštinsko javno tužilaštvo) in Pirot requested the institution of a preliminary judicial investigation (preduzimanje pojedinih istražnih radnji) into the respondent’s non-compliance with the final custody judgment of 26 October 2005.