5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the vicinity of Gradiška. 6.  On 8 May 1992 she married Z.G. The couple had two children, a daughter born in 1992 (“A”) and a son born in 1994 (“B”). 7.  Following an alleged episode of domestic violence, in the beginning of 2001 the applicant left her husband. She succeeded in taking A whereas Z.G. kept B. 8.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant requested the Social Work Centre in Gradiška (“Social Work Centre”) to award her custody of the children, pending the resolution of attempts at reconciliation. The Social Work Centre did not decide upon this request until 28 February 2003 (see paragraph 11 below). 9.  On 30 May 2002 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Gradiška Court of First Instance seeking a divorce from Z.G. and custody of the children. On 23 December 2002 she sought interim measures in respect of custody, but she did not receive any response in this connection. 10.  In a judgment of 19 February 2003, the Gradiška Court of First Instance granted the applicant a divorce and awarded her custody of A and B. Z.G. appealed. 11.  On 28 February 2003 the Social Work Centre granted the applicant provisional custody of A and B pending the entry into force of the judgment of 19 February 2003. It relied on section 91(1) of the Family Act 1979 which was no longer in force (see paragraph 40 below). The decision was immediately enforceable. 12.  On 12 March 2003 the applicant initiated proceedings for the enforcement of the decision of 28 February 2003. On 18 March 2003 the Social Work Centre forwarded the decision to the Department for General Administration (Odjeljenje za opštu upravu; another municipal body) for enforcement. Following a lengthy exchange of letters with the Social Work Centre and an initial refusal to enforce the decision, on 30 July 2003 the Department for General Administration accepted to enforce it. 13.  On 28 April 2003 the applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber, a domestic human-rights body (case no. CH/03/14055). 14.  On 18 August and 26 September 2003 the Department for General Administration carried out two unsuccessful attempts to enforce the decision of 28 February 2003. 15.  On 6 November 2003 the Human Rights Chamber found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision reads, in the relevant part, as follows:
“64. The Chamber finds in these circumstances that the proceedings failed to meet the standard of speed and efficiency required under Article 8 of the Convention in order to secure the applicant's right to respect for her family life. The Chamber emphasises that it is essential in this field, if the family life of parents and children is to be respected, that the remedies available and the system for enforcing them should be clearly established by law, that the authorities involved should be properly aware of the law and that they should avoid undue delay and in particular deal promptly with appeals and other requests which come before them and respect applicable time limits. It is particularly unacceptable that family life should be jeopardised by interdepartmental disputes over administrative responsibilities, as has occurred here.
... 69. ... Since the applicant's rights have been violated by inter alia the fact that the decision of the Social Work Centre granting her provisional custody of the children has not been enforced yet, the Chamber considers it appropriate to order the respondent Party to take all necessary steps to execute the decision of the Social Work Centre, as soon as possible but in no case later than 5 January 2004.”
The decision, in the operative provisions, ordered the Republika Srpska “to take all necessary steps through its authorities, to promptly execute the decision of the Social Work Centre, in any event no later than 5 January 2004” and “to pay to the applicant, by 5 January 2004, 2,500 Bosnian markas [the equivalent of 1,280 euros] by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damages”. The decision was read out at a public hearing on 5 December 2003. Having been taken by the full Chamber, it entered into force immediately. 16.  On 18 December 2003 the Department for General Administration handed over B to the applicant. On the next day Z.G. abducted B. 17.  On 22 December 2003 the applicant sought from the Department for General Administration that the decision of 28 February 2003 be enforced anew. On the same day she submitted a criminal complaint against Z.G. 18.  On 16 January 2004 the Department for General Administration concluded that the decision of 28 February 2003 had been enforced and terminated the enforcement proceedings. On 17 March 2004 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision of 16 January 2004. It would appear that the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska has not yet examined an application for judicial review submitted by the applicant. 19.  On 12 March 2004 the Republika Srpska paid the damages awarded by the Human Rights Chamber. 20.  On 23 April 2004 the competent public prosecutor, having been satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that Z.G. had committed child abduction, filed with the Gradiška Court of First Instance an indictment for confirmation. On 20 May 2004 the Gradiška Court of First Instance confirmed the indictment. Following an initial appearance of Z.G, no further steps were taken prior to the death of Z.G. on 14 January 2006. 21.  On 7 September 2004 the judgment of 19 February 2003 entered into force having been upheld by the Banja Luka District Court. The provisional decision of 28 February 2003 thereby ceased to have effect. 22.  On 14 January 2006 Z.G. died. B remained with D.B., his paternal grandmother. 23.  On 16 January 2006 the applicant addressed again the Social Work Centre seeking the return of B. 24.  On 1 February 2006 B objected to being returned and the Social Work Centre decided not to use coercion. 25.  On 27 February 2006 the Social Work Centre decided not to award custody of B to D.B. On 3 April 2006 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision of 27 February 2006. 26.  On 2 March 2006 the Social Work Centre unsuccessfully attempted to persuade D.B. to facilitate the return of B. According to the minutes of the meeting, D.B. expressed, in the presence of B, her disgust for the applicant and for the fact that she lived in the countryside. D.B. was described as manipulative, possessive, authoritarian and aggressive. 27.  On 20 March 2006 a social worker submitted her expert opinion to the Social Work Centre. It stated that Z.G. had hindered B from seeing the applicant to the end of his life by, for example, threatening school teachers who tolerated his occasional meetings with the applicant at the school premises. The separation, coupled with Z.G.'s regular attempts to instil into B negative feelings towards the applicant, led to B becoming estranged from the applicant. The report concluded that the return of B would nevertheless be in B's best interests. 28.  On 31 March 2006 the Gradiška Minor Offences Court convicted D.B. of subjecting B to psychological violence and ordered the Social Work Centre to secure the prompt return of B with police assistance if necessary. The decision was immediately enforceable. 29.  On 4 April 2006 the Social Work Centre obtained another expert opinion recommending the prompt return of B. 30.  On 11 April 2006 the Banja Luka District Court upheld the decision of 31 March 2006. 31.  On 25 April 2006 B again objected to being returned. 32.  On 11 May 2006 the local police refused to provide assistance to the Social Work Centre. 33.  On 12 May 2006 B once again objected to being returned. 34.  On 14 June 2006 the Social Work Centre closed the case and instructed the applicant to initiate proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of 19 February 2003 before the competent court. The applicant appealed insisting that the Social Work Centre secure the return of her son. On 10 July 2006 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision of 14 June 2006. On 22 February 2007 the Banja Luka District Court, upon an application for judicial review, upheld the second-instance decision of 10 July 2006. 35.  On 7 August 2006 the Social Work Centre informed the Gradiška Minor Offences Court that it was unable to enforce the decision of 31 March 2006 because of the lack of necessary secondary legislation. 36.  On 22 August 2006 the applicant applied to the Gradiška Court of First Instance for the decision of 31 March 2006 to be enforced. The Gradiška Court of First Instance initially issued an execution writ (on 8 September 2006), but it subsequently decided (on 10 January 2007) that the applicant should have sought from the Social Work Centre that the impugned decision be enforced. The Gradiška Court of First Instance accordingly quashed the execution writ of 8 September 2006. 37.  On 29 September 2006 B again objected to being returned, but continued to occasionally meet with the applicant at the school premises (on 26 October, 6 November and 19 December 2006). 38.  On 22 January 2007 the Social Work Centre returned B to the applicant.