6.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1949 and 1950 respectively. The first applicant lives in Sydney, Australia and the second and third applicants live in Skopje. 7.  On 19 September 2008 the first applicant married Mrs J.S.M. in Skopje. They went to Australia, where on 30 August 2010 Mrs J.S.M. gave birth to their daughter, M.M. Relations between the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. became strained, and on an unspecified date in 2011 Mrs J.S.M. and M.M. came back to the respondent State. In November 2011 the first applicant took eleven months’ unpaid leave from work in Australia and went to the respondent State to stay with his daughter. 8.  On 10 October 2011 Mrs J.S.M. brought a civil claim before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) seeking the dissolution of her marriage with the first applicant. 9.  On 13 October 2011, at the request of the first-instance court, the Centre initiated proceedings regarding the parental rights of the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. 10.  On 6 December 2011 the first applicant requested that the Centre establish his specific rights in respect of contact with his daughter. On 3 January 2012 the Centre gave interim custody of the child to Mrs J.S.M. and set out the first applicant’s contact rights regarding M.M. (one hour twice a month in the Centre under supervision by professionals). Mrs J.S.M. was ordered to bring the child to the Centre. The decision further stated that it would be valid until the final conclusion of the civil proceedings regarding the dissolution of the marriage. It further provided that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. On 8 April 2012 the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the Ministry”) quashed this decision and ordered the Centre to reconsider the facts of the case, taking into consideration the interests of the child. Before that date the first applicant saw his daughter on only one occasion (13 January 2012). 11.  On 16 May 2012 the first-instance court dissolved the marriage between the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. It granted custody of the child to the mother, ordered the first applicant to pay child maintenance, and established that he would have continuing contact with his daughter as decided by the Centre. This decision became final on 25 December 2012. 12.  In the meantime, on 10 May 2012, the first applicant made a new application to the Centre for a contact order in respect of M.M. On 4 July 2012 the Centre set out that the first applicant could meet with his daughter four times a month at intervals specified in the decision. It no longer specified supervised meetings in the Centre and ordered his ex-wife to comply with the decision. The decision again stated that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. On 1 October 2012 the Ministry dismissed an appeal by Mrs J.S.M. 13.  On 8 October 2012 the first applicant informed the Centre that he was going back to Australia. On 22 October 2012 the Centre set aside its decision of 4 July 2012 and stated, inter alia, that:
“[The first applicant], despite the decision (of 4 July 2012), did not see his minor child at any of the scheduled meetings set up in accordance with the decision dated 4 July 2012.” 14.  This decision was served on the first applicant on 29 October 2012. 15.  In April 2013 the first applicant informed the Centre that he would be staying in the respondent State between 16 May and 2 September 2013. In this connection, on 23 April 2013 he requested that the Centre set out his right to have contact with his daughter during this period, which the Centre did with a decision of 7 June 2013: it specified that the first applicant could meet M.M. twice a month in duration of 8 hours without supervision by the Centre. It also arranged their meetings concerning working days and the child’s birthday. According to the first applicant, he had seen M.M. only once, briefly, in the Centre in the presence of a professional. 16.  The first applicant wrote to the Ministry on 3 July 2013, seeking the assistance of police to enforce the Centre’s decisions. 17.  On 8 July 2013 the first applicant requested enforcement action by the Centre. He also sought, under section 87(4) and (6) of the Family Act (see paragraph 35 below), temporary custody of the child, given the lengthy period in which he had had no contact with her. By a letter of 11 July 2013 addressed to the Centre the first applicant complained that he had not seen his daughter for two years, and demanded that the Centre take responsibility for enforcing its contact orders. 18.  By a letter of 27 August 2013, the Centre informed the first applicant that the Ministry of Justice was responsible, under section 277(2) of the Administrative Proceedings Act (see paragraph 42 below), for enforcing its decisions at the request of the Centre or the party concerned. According to the first applicant, the Ministry of Justice informed him that it had no jurisdiction over enforcement of the Centre’s decisions. The Government did not contest this assertion. 19.  On 2 September 2013 the first applicant left for Australia. 20.  By a letter of 6 September 2013, the Centre gave him the following information:
“[The enforcement of the decision of 7 June 2013] is being totally obstructed by the child’s mother Mrs J.S.M., and none of the scheduled meetings have taken place so far ... The minor child is being completely deprived by the mother of the presence of her father in her life. As a result irreparable damage is being done to her psychological, emotional and social development ... [the decision of 7 June 2013] is being totally obstructed by Mrs J.S.M., who has stated, in the presence of a professional employed by the Centre and a police officer, that she will not comply with the decision ...” 21.  On 20 September 2013 the Centre dismissed the first applicant’s request of 8 July 2013 to obtain temporary custody of the child (see paragraph 17 above), stating:
“... the team of experts considers that the above request is not in the best interests of the minor child, as it may affect the development of little M.M. ... The expert team took into consideration the age of the minor M.M. and the risk of stress and trauma if she is separated from the environment in which she is being brought up, which could affect her psycho-social and emotional development.” 22.  The first applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that the Centre itself had established that the lengthy period with no contact between himself and M.M. was causing “irreparable damage” to her development (see paragraph 20 above) and that his request should therefore be granted. On 10 February 2014 the Ministry dismissed his appeal and upheld the Centre’s decision. The first applicant did not specify whether he had appealed against this decision before the Administrative Court, which has jurisdiction to decide in such matters. 23.  With submissions of 9 April 2014 the first applicant informed the Centre that he would arrive in the respondent State in May 2014. He also sought that the Centre specified his contact rights with M.M. 24.  On 15 May 2014 the Centre set out the first applicant’s right to contact his daughter. It specified five supervised one-hour meetings with the child in the premises of the Centre. The order concerned May and July 2014. The first applicant appealed this decision, which the Ministry confirmed on 25 July 2014. In the meantime, the Centre dismissed his fresh request for more frequent contacts with M.M. 25.  On 1 August 2014 the first applicant requested that the Centre specify his visiting rights regarding his daughter for that month. On 30 September 2014 the Centre dismissed this request since the first applicant had left the respondent State on 4 September 2014. 26.  On 4 October 2012 the second and third applicants asked the Centre to set out their contact rights in respect of M.M., which the Centre did with a decision of 9 January 2013. The decision further specified that all the scheduled meetings of the second and third applicants with M.M. which had not been held were to take place (да се надомести секое пропуштено видување). The decision stated that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. As stated by the second and third applicants, and confirmed by a letter that the Centre sent on 8 May 2013 to the Helsinki Committee office in Skopje, they did not meet with M.M. at any of the meeting times specified by the Centre. According to the Centre, this was because:
“... (Mrs J.S.M.) does not respond to any invitations or to telephone calls, does not show any intention of cooperating, and totally obstructs the work of the expert team of the Centre and the enforcement of this decision [9 January 2013].” 27.  On 24 April 2013 the Ministry quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Centre for renewed examination. 28.  The applicants provided copies of letters submitted to the State Administrative Inspectorate and the Ministry of the Interior in which they complained about the non-compliance of Mrs J.S.M. with the decisions of the Centre and that the latter had failed to enforce them. 29.  On 5 September 2013 the second and third applicants asked the Centre to rule on their contact rights in respect of M.M., which the Centre did by a decision of 21 January 2014 (it specified supervised meetings on the Centre’s premises). This decision was served on these applicants on 7 February 2014. The applicants were also instructed to visit the First Family Centre in Skopje, which specialised in issues related to domestic violence. The applicants had no contact with M.M. until 13 February 2014, the date when they first met her on the Centre’s premises. On 27 February 2014 they visited the First Family Centre, which issued a document attesting that it had no jurisdiction in childcare matters and did not consider that there was a need for the second and third applicants to attend sessions regarding domestic violence. 30.  According to the applicants, the Centre did not reply to their requests for it to arrange for the meetings with M.M., as specified by the decision of 9 January 2013 (see paragraph 26 above). 31.  On 2 April 2014 the Centre delivered a new decision, confirmed on appeal on 24 June 2014, setting out the rights of the second and third applicants to contact M.M. According to the applicants, this decision provided for less contact with M.M. than the decision of 21 January 2014. No information was provided as to whether the decision was being enforced in practice. 32.  On 26 August and 21 October 2013 the first applicant and the Centre both lodged criminal complaints against Mrs J.S.M. regarding her refusal to comply with the Centre’s orders concerning the first applicant’s rights of contact with M.M. On 29 October 2013 the public prosecutor submitted an indictment to the first-instance court against her for child abduction. On 12 December 2014 Skopje Court of First Instance found Mrs J.S.M. guilty of child abduction because she had prevented the father from contacting the child as specified by the Social Care Centre. It further sentenced her to three months’ imprisonment suspended for one year after the judgment would become final. No information was submitted whether this judgment became final.