CASE OF ANEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev
5. The first and second applicants were born in 1981 and 2002 respectively, and live in Sofia. 6. The first applicant married A.I. in 2001 and their son, the second applicant, was born in 2002. According to the first applicant, her husband started abusing her psychologically after the marriage, which grew worse after the child was born. 7. The first applicant filed for divorce in 2004. She applied for interim measures in the same proceedings, seeking custody of the child while the proceedings were ongoing. The Sofia District Court granted her application for interim measures on 11 May 2005, giving her custody of the child. 8. In the meantime, in January 2005, the second applicant visited his father for two days. A.I. then took the child back to the first applicant and insisted that they both return to live with him. When the first applicant refused, he put the child back in the car and drove away, saying that she could only see her son at his apartment. 9. A.I. has kept the second applicant with him ever since. 10. On 23 June 2006 the first-instance court granted the couple a divorce, finding that the husband was responsible for the marriage’s failure. It granted custody of the child to the first applicant and limited A.I.’s contact rights to two hours twice a month in the presence of the first applicant and another adult designated by her. The decision was upheld in ordinary appeal on 14 June 2007 and in cassation appeal on 1 October 2008. 11. On 13 May 2005 the first applicant obtained a writ of enforcement on the basis of the decision on interim measures. She brought enforcement proceedings later the same month. 12. The bailiff scheduled handovers of the child to the first applicant on the following dates: 14 June 2005, 15 July 2005, 25 August 2005, 30 September 2005, 21 October 2005, 18 November 2005, 22 November 2005, 26 January 2006, 5 March 2008, 14 July 2008, 5 August 2008 and 20 August 2008. A.I. did not come to any of those appointments or cooperate with the bailiff. 13. On 19 September 2005 the bailiff fined A.I. about 25 euros (EUR) for failing to comply with a judicial decision. 14. Subsequently, A.I. went to the bailiff’s office and challenged her for having fined him. As a police officer, he threatened to fine her for wrongfully crossing the street as soon as she left her office. A.I. was dismissed from the police on 17 January 2007 as a result of that conduct. The order for his dismissal referred to his systematic obstruction of the enforcement of a final judicial decision and to conduct damaging to the image of the police. 15. On 22 November 2006 the Sofia District Court ordered that the child be removed from A.I.’s home and handed over to the first applicant on the basis of Article 71 § 1 of the Family Code of 1985. On 4 January 2007 the first applicant, accompanied by a lawyer and several police officers, went to the village where A.I. was living with the child and spoke to both A.I. and A.I.’s father. A.I. categorically refused to hand the child over, thus failing to comply either with the court order of 22 November 2006 or the decision on interim measures of May 2005. 16. The first applicant obtained a writ of enforcement in October 2008 in respect of the final judgment on the divorce and on granting custody to her. 17. On 11 December 2008, 5 March 2009, 2 September 2009 and 22 December 2009 the bailiff unsuccessfully attempted to hand the child over to the first applicant. On those occasions A.I. either failed to arrive for the appointments or did not take the child to them. When the bailiff and the first applicant visited his house on 11 December 2008, A.I. had left a note on his front door addressed to the first applicant and all accompanying individuals. The note stated that he was firmly opposed to handing the child over to her. 18. The bailiff fined A.I. in July 2008 and in September 2009 for failure to cooperate in the enforcement proceedings. In 2009 the first applicant did not attend two of the scheduled meetings for handing over of the child, indicating in a letter to the bailiff that prior work commitments prevented her from attending one of those meetings. It would appear that those meetings had been scheduled by the bailiff without prior consultation with the applicant as to her availability. 19. On 30 December 2009 the Pazardzhik District Court suspended the enforcement proceedings brought by the first applicant in relation to the final judgment of 1 October 2008. It acted in response to an application from A.I. for interim measures (обезпечителни мерки) in the context of proceedings which he had brought to seek the limitation of the first applicant’s parental rights and the granting of custody to him. 20. The first applicant asked the Pazardzhik Regional Court to quash the suspension order. The court rejected her application in a final decision of 15 June 2010. 21. Following a change of jurisdiction, the case was sent to the Sofia District Court. The proceedings for a change of custody were terminated by the Sofia City Court in a final decision of 19 June 2013 after A.I. withdrew his application. 22. In the meantime, between April 2008 and July 2010, representatives of the social services, accompanied by the police, the mayor and the first applicant, repeatedly visited the house where A.I. lived with the second applicant. They met the child’s teachers and his paternal grandparents. On 20 April 2010 the social services sent a report to the police in which they concluded that while A.I. was caring for the second applicant appropriately, the child needed to have contact with his mother to ensure his healthy development. 23. The social services renewed their involvement in the case in 2012. After A.I. had expressed an intention to cooperate, the social services met him and the second applicant a number of times between September 2012 and April 2014. During the meetings the second applicant consistently expressed the wish to continue to live with his father. 24. The first applicant brought criminal proceedings against A.I. for obstructing the enforcement of the 2005 and 2008 decisions on the exercise of parental rights. 25. On 13 July 2009 the first-instance court found A.I. guilty of obstructing the implementation of final judicial decisions. The court observed that A.I. had demonstrated a belief that he was beyond the reach of the justice system and could act with impunity. The court also held that the particularly long period in which A.I. had kept the child, namely between his third and seventh birthday, was an aggravating circumstance. The court nevertheless absolved A.I. of criminal responsibility and, instead, imposed on him a fine of EUR 2,400 as an administrative punishment under Article 78a § 1 of the Criminal Code. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Pazardzhik Regional Court on 8 October 2009 in a final judgment. 26. On 17 December 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed an earlier decision by the police to refuse to provide assistance for the transfer of the second applicant and ordered it to determine the best way to arrange it. The social services cooperated with the police towards organising such a transfer, which was due to take place on 14 January 2010. That procedure was not carried out because the child refused to go with the first applicant. 27. The third applicant was born on 29 August 1972 and lives in Sofia. 28. The third applicant gave birth to a child, P.P., in July 2005 while she was living with the child’s father, Kh.P. The parents split up in March 2009 and the third applicant moved out with the child and his two elder siblings, who were not Kh.P.’s children. 29. On 1 July 2010, during judicial proceedings on custody, the Sofia District Court determined interim measures, giving custody to the third applicant. She started living with her child alone thereafter. 30. An expert report of 19 December 2010 drawn up in the context of the proceedings concluded that the child was strongly attached to both parents and had expressed a wish to live with his mother while continuing to see his father. 31. In a final decision of 29 October 2013 the Supreme Court of Cassation gave custody of the child to the third applicant. 32. On 5 September 2011, after one of his scheduled meetings with the child, Kh.P. did not return the latter to the third applicant’s home. Since that day the third applicant has only seen the child a few times and the meetings have always been in an institutional setting. 33. On 13 September 2011 the third applicant visited Kh.P.’s home in order to agree on the child’s return, but Kh.P. prevented the child from leaving with her. Instead, according to the third applicant, he assaulted her in the presence of the child by hitting her on the head, pushing her against the lift, and knocking her to the ground. The third applicant submitted that thereafter she had repeatedly attempted to reach an agreement with the child’s father on the child’s return to live with her, as well as that she had contacted two private bailiffs over the following months but neither of them had taken any action because they considered that the case was too difficult. 34. On 17 October 2012 the Sofia District Court issued a writ of enforcement to the third applicant on the basis of the court’s decision on interim measures of July 2010. 35. A first attempt by the bailiff to get the child handed over to the third applicant took place on 11 December 2012 but it failed as Kh.P. did not take the child to the meeting. The bailiff voiced his intention to seek police assistance to summon Kh.P. to the following meeting. 36. The third applicant met the child on 11 January 2013 for the first time since he had been taken away by his other parent on 5 September 2011. The meeting took place in the presence of Kh.P. and a social worker. The child was reserved at the beginning but gradually warmed up to his mother, told her about his school and other activities, and allowed her to hug and kiss him. 37. A second meeting between the third applicant and her child took place on 18 January 2013. The child arrived in a negative frame of mind and acted coldly towards the third applicant, refused to take the presents she had brought for him and asked to leave with his father. 38. In two reports issued on 25 January 2013 and 1 February 2013 the social services found that, while the child had developed a solid emotional connection with the father, he had not lost his bond to his mother. The father had to show approval and encouragement for the relationship between the child and the mother for it to develop healthily. 39. The bailiff attempted to have the third applicant meet with the child on five more occasions – 28 January 2013, 19 April 2013, 26 April 2013, 31 May 2013 and 28 June 2013. Kh.P. did not attend the first four meetings nor send the child, despite having been summoned to some of them by the police. On 26 April and 31 May 2013 the bailiff fined him for his failure to take the child to the appointments scheduled on those two days. One of those fines was subsequently quashed in court. 40. When Kh.P. took the child to meet with the third applicant on 28 June 2013, the child became visibly upset and tearful at the sight of her. He refused to hug her or otherwise engage with her. A psychologist present at the meeting concluded that it was impossible to hand the child over at that point in time as he was in a state of psychological stress and had a clearly negative attitude to his mother. As a result the bailiff postponed the handover of the child and urged both parents to actively cooperate so that the child could gradually accept his mother. The bailiff noted that the other parent played a key role in that process and that his constructive attitude was crucial for restoring the mother-child relationship. 41. In June 2013 the social services recommended that the third applicant, Kh.P. and the child have six months of counselling. Kh.P. disapproved of psychologists working with his son, insisted that such sessions were a form of child exploitation and said that the mere mention of the child’s mother gave his son headaches, which in turn impeded his ability to play football. Kh.P. did not allow the child to see his mother. He informed the psychologists that he and the child slept in the same bed at night and avoided their attempts to discuss the child’s psychological development. Kh.P. instead emphasised his own financial resources and stability. 42. A psychologist met the child once during the six-month counselling period. The child refused to speak about the third applicant and only referred to her as “M”. The psychologist concluded that the child’s speech was full of inconsistent statements which showed that his attitude to her was being manipulated. The father was categorically opposed to contact between the child and the mother, which meant the child was afraid to express his need and wish to maintain a relationship with her. The child missed having contact with his mother, but could not express that openly for fear of his father’s disapproval. The child suffered from parental alienation syndrome and there was a risk to his emotional and psychological development. On 28 August 2013 the social centre put an end to the counselling because of Kh.P.’s lack of cooperation, in not taking the child to the appointments. 43. A psychological assessment of the child and the situation with his parents was drawn up in September 2013. It concluded that the child was experiencing a chronic emotional crisis. His categorical rejection of the third applicant was at the origin of parental alienation syndrome. 44. A new attempt to voluntarily hand the child over to the third applicant took place on 10 June 2014 but failed because the other parent did not take the child to the meeting. The bailiff postponed any further enforcement measures. The following day, 11 June 2014, the child, Kh.P. and the third applicant met at the social centre. Kh.P. stated that he would not allow any meetings in the future and the third applicant has not met her child since. 45. An expert report drawn up on 17 June 2014 found that Kh.P. exhibited a tendency to verbal aggression, that he continuously demeaned the mother and criticised her personality and that this had turned the child into “a child at risk”. The obsessive and controlling love demonstrated by him towards the child risked making him rebel in the future; the permanent pitching of the child against the third applicant had led to psychosomatic disorders, as evidenced by the child’s frequent headaches. 46. On 11 July 2014 the third applicant asked the bailiff to schedule a new date for implementing the court’s decision and to not suspend enforcement. She also asked the bailiff to direct the child to attend mandatory sessions with a psychologist and psychiatrist before his actual handing over to her, given that he needed specialist assistance to overcome his feelings of alienation towards her. 47. On 22 July 2014 the third applicant asked the social services to provide her child with psychological counselling and support. On 8 August 2014 she complained to the Minister of Justice about the bailiff’s inability to enforce the court decision granting custody to her. The Ministry replied on 21 April 2015 that the bailiff had done nothing wrong in the exercise of her functions. 48. On 3 September 2014 she asked the bailiff to order weekly meetings between her and the child on the premises of the social services, emphasising that that was something to which Kh.P. had agreed but with which he had not complied. The third applicant also stressed that the child’s health and well-being were the most important aspects of the process and asked the bailiff to coordinate all the actions related to the child’s attendance at counselling sessions. On 5 September 2014 the third applicant sent documents to the bailiff issued by the social services directing the child to attend psychological counselling and support with a view to reestablishing contact with his mother. On 7 November 2014 the social services reported to the bailiff that the support work which was to be carried out with the child had not started as the father had repeatedly failed to take the child to the social centre. 49. On 22 October 2014 the third applicant again asked the social services to provide counselling for her child. The social services replied on 29 October 2014 that they had organised new sessions for the child and had apprised the other parent accordingly. They also informed the third applicant that the bailiff had ordered the child to report to the social centre every Thursday at 4 p.m. in order to meet with the third applicant. The first meeting was set for 30 October 2014 but did not take place as Kh.P. did not take the child to it. 50. The third applicant subsequently received a letter from the State Agency for Child Protection, which directed her to seek counselling from the social services. The report drawn up in that connection indicated that the negative attitude displayed by the father towards the mother had been adopted by the child, who refused to meet his mother. It was necessary to work with the child for him to overcome his negative attitude to his mother. 51. On 28 November 2014 the third applicant wrote to the bailiff, copying in the social services, and expressed her concern about the child’s well-being. She asked for the judicial decision granting custody to her to be enforced, pointing out that the child’s well-being was of paramount importance and had to be considered in any related actions. 52. A report, dated 25 March 2015 and drawn up by the municipal social services, stated that specialists had met with the third applicant on ten occasions. She was found to be cooperative and willing to do whatever was necessary in order to facilitate contact with her child. The report concluded that it was not in the child’s interests to continue to live with his father given that he manipulated him emotionally. The child did not dare to oppose the father as he was entirely dependent on him. The child’s alienation from the mother was damaging for him as he needed her close involvement in his life. It was necessary to impose mandatory psychological counselling on the father in order for him to cooperate, otherwise the child had to be taken out of his home and either entrusted to the third applicant or placed in a “neutral environment”. The placing of the child into a foster home had to be only considered as a last resort, if the father continued to obstruct contact with the mother. 53. The bailiff scheduled another meeting, for 23 April 2015, to hand the child over to the third applicant but Kh.P. again failed to appear. The bailiff postponed further enforcement to an unspecified date. The third applicant signed the report drawn up by the bailiff, expressing her discontent at the bailiff’s inability to enforce the judicial decision. 54. On 8 October 2012 the third applicant complained to the prosecutor under Article 182 § 2 of the Criminal Code about Kh.P.’s active obstruction of the enforcement of the judicial decision granting custody to her. The prosecutor opened criminal proceedings and informed the third applicant of his decision on 19 April 2013. 55. A full psychological expert report on the child was drawn up on 2 February 2014 in the context of those proceedings. The report’s conclusion was that the child should not be forced to see his mother at that point in time. What was needed was systematic good-faith efforts by the father aimed at improving the child’s attitude to his mother. Pressure from public institutions for the child to see his mother was likely to have a negative impact on him and so developing a relationship with his mother had to happen gradually. The report emphasised that if the child were to receive his father’s support he would in all likelihood open up to his mother and develop a close relationship with her. 56. Kh.P. was acquitted at the end of the proceedings in a final judgment of 7 July 2015 by the Sofia City Court. 57. On 26 July 2013, the child, represented by Kh.P., brought court proceedings against the third applicant, alleging acts of domestic violence by her. The child alleged, through his father, that he had been put under constant psychological pressure by his mother, which had led to sleep disturbances and restlessness and a fear that she could appear at any time in the street and kidnap him. He claimed that he had developed a headache, felt sick and had even vomited during the latest attempt to reunite him with his mother on 28 June 2013. Experts questioned in the proceedings found that the child tended to identify himself with the father and his active denial of his mother was damaging for him. The experts concluded that it was imperative for the child’s well-being to provide him with urgent psychological therapy. 58. On 20 December 2013 the first-instance court rejected an application for a restraining order on the third applicant. In particular, the court found the complaint about psychological violence ill-founded as it had been based on the mother’s repeated attempts to have the bailiff hand the child over to her in accordance with the court’s decision. The court held that the third applicant had been right to seek effective enforcement of the decision granting custody to her, just as Kh.P. had been obliged to comply with that decision. The court concluded that the child’s well-being was at risk as a result of the ongoing, open animosity between the parents and ruled that a copy of the judgment should be sent to the social services with a view to them taking appropriate measures. There is no information on file about whether that court’s decision was appealed against. 59. Kh.P. brought proceedings in 2014 to be given custody of the child. The Sofia District Court rejected his application on 29 July 2015. 60. The fourth applicant was born on 14 March 1973 and lives in Stara Zagora region. 61. On 13 February 2012 the fourth applicant’s marriage to R.D. was dissolved by a court decision which also determined his contact rights with his child, who had been born in 2009. According to the decision, the fourth applicant was to see the child every first and third weekend of the month between 9 a.m. on Saturday and 6 p.m. on Sunday, and for one month during the summer holidays. Immediately after an argument between him and the child’s mother on 15 June 2012, the mother started preventing him from having contact with his child. 62. The fourth applicant brought forced enforcement proceedings in February 2013, seeking the effective implementation of his contact rights. According to him, the bailiff informed him that as the meetings with the child were scheduled to take place at the weekend, when the bailiff was off work, the fourth applicant would be better being accompanied to the meetings by witnesses. Those individuals were to testify about what they saw by signing a declaration every time he encountered difficulties in seeing the child. The fourth applicant attempted to see the child on numerous occasions but his former wife continued to place obstacles in his way. He submitted seven declarations about such incidents, all drawn up in the course of 2013. The bailiff fined the mother once, setting the sum at about EUR 50. 63. The fourth applicant turned to the Child Protection Agency a number of times and the agency urged the mother to allow contact between the child and the fourth applicant, as set out in the court decision of 13 February 2012. 64. Notwithstanding those efforts, the fourth applicant submitted that he was still unable to see the child owing to the obstacles created by the mother. 65. In July 2013 the fourth applicant complained to the prosecutor. In August 2013 the prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings, finding in particular that the child’s mother had earlier been fined for impeding contact between the child and the fourth applicant, and that it would be unlawful to sanction her twice for the same offence. On appeal, the higher prosecutor returned the case for further examination. In September 2013 the district prosecutor opened criminal proceedings against the child’s mother for obstructing the implementation of a judicial decision. The prosecutor terminated those proceedings on the basis of the fact that the child systematically refused to spend time alone with her father, but the firstinstance court later quashed that decision and returned the case for further consideration. 66. On 21 November 2014 a different district prosecutor again terminated the proceedings, a decision that was upheld by courts at two levels of jurisdiction, on 17 December 2014 and 4 May 2015 respectively. The highest court involved, the Stara Zagora Regional Court, found more specifically that instead of pursuing a constructive dialogue with the child’s mother with a view to seeing the child, the fourth applicant had resorted to forced enforcement proceedings, which had been unsuitable in the circumstances and had meant the child had been scared to go with him as he had always been accompanied by strangers. 67. The fourth applicant applied for a divorce on 15 June 2011. The court granted it on 13 February 2012, granting custody to the mother, R.D., and giving contact rights to the applicant. R.D. did not participate in those proceedings; she was represented by a court-appointed lawyer as the fourth applicant had stated that he did not know where his wife could be contacted to be summoned. The fourth applicant continued to live with R.D. and the child at their family home until 15 June 2012. 68. On the latter date an argument erupted between the fourth applicant and R.D., following which he left the family home. On 21 June 2012 R.D. instructed a lawyer to file for divorce on her behalf. The lawyer informed her that she was already divorced and had been so since 13 February 2012. Her former husband had also married another woman two weeks after that judgment had become final, in March 2012. 69. On 15 July 2013 R.D. sought a change in the arrangements for contact between the fourth applicant and the child. She expressed serious concerns about the child’s well-being and, in particular, voiced a fear that the father, having acted deceitfully in the past, might emigrate to Canada with his new wife, taking the child without R.D.’s agreement or knowledge. She specified that the fourth applicant had proposed that she give up the child so that his new wife could adopt her. She also stated that he had not sought to have contact with the child since 15 June 2012 and had arrived at her dwelling on 20 April 2013 for the first time with several strangers; that had scared the child and she had refused to go with her father. 70. The fourth applicant submitted during those proceedings that he had had a hernia operation in July 2012 and had been put on sick leave until 31 March 2013. As a result, he had been unwell and had not been in a position to collect the child, whom he had only seen at her kindergarten. He had been on bad terms with R.D. and that was the reason he had not called to enquire about the child’s well-being. In September 2012 he had attempted to meet his daughter but R.D. had kept the child away from him and had refused to let them have any contact with each other. 71. The social services submitted a report concluding that as the fourth applicant had not seen the child for many months in a row the relationship between the two of them had broken down. They recommended that contact between him and the child take place, at least temporarily, in the presence of the mother. 72. On 10 January 2014 the first-instance court granted R.D.’s application for limiting the father’s contact rights with the child to visits without sleepovers. It concluded on the basis of a number of reports by social services that the relationship between the fourth applicant and the child had broken down. That decision was upheld on appeal on 30 April 2014. 73. On 27 July 2012 the fourth applicant complained to social services that R.D. had been preventing him from seeing his daughter since 15 June 2012 and that the mother was not caring for the child appropriately. He stated that it was the latter’s grandmother, who suffered from a psychiatric condition, who was the child’s main care-giver. The social services carried out an inquiry and established in a report of 3 September 2012 that the child was not being brought up by her grand-mother but enjoyed the daily care and support of her mother. They also found that R.D. had not been preventing contact between the child and the applicant, but that the fourth applicant himself had not been seeking contact with his child. They had informed him that he had to meet his daughter regularly and that she needed the support and care of both of her parents. 74. On 22 February 2013 the fourth applicant asked the bailiff to start enforcement proceedings on the basis of a writ of enforcement obtained on 29 June 2012. On 27 February 2013 the bailiff asked R.D. to hand the child over to the fourth applicant in line with his contact rights. R.D. replied on 28 February 2013 that the father had not sought any contact with the child since 15 June 2012, when he had left the family home, and had not telephoned to ask about the child’s physical or emotional state. R.D. pointed out that she was aware of the arrangements for contact between him and the child, and had not opposed any meetings between them. 75. The applicant complained to the bailiff on 1 and 16 March 2013 that R.D. had not taken the child to meet him in a café located about 30 metres from R.D.’s home. The bailiff replied that the fourth applicant was expected to collect the child from the house and not from cafés or other locations of his own choosing. 76. The bailiff scheduled a handover of the child to the fourth applicant for 12 August 2013 and R.D. took the child to that appointment. However, the bailiff did not enforce it as the child refused to go with her father. The bailiff scheduled a new appointment, 19 August 2013, for a handover for a contact meeting and R.D. took the child along to it. In the meantime, on 16 August 2013 the fourth applicant withdrew his request to use his right to spend a month with the child during the holidays. Despite that withdrawal, the bailiff fined R.D. on 19 August 2013 for not complying with the contact arrangements in favour of the fourth applicant. 77. The bailiff further fined R.D. respectively on 28 May 2013, 11 July 2013 and 9 October 2013, referring to her continued failure to hand the child over to the father, beginning from 22 February 2013. R.D. brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the last fine, submitting that she had systematically prepared the child for her two-day stays with her father, but that the child had regularly refused to go with him after he had arrived at meetings in the company of strangers. On 6 November 2013 the Stara Zagora Regional Court quashed the fine of 9 October 2013. The court held that the bailiff should have attempted different means for enforcing the judgment before resorting to repeated fines. It set out his prerogatives under the law and emphasised that the bailiff was expected to be present when the child was handed over and to draw up reports on the particular circumstances, instead of relying on declarations signed by the parties or by individuals selected by them. 78. Subsequently, the fourth applicant requested that further fines be imposed on R.D. for not being at home when he had gone to take the child. The bailiff refused on two occasions, finding that the dates in question had not been part of the applicant’s visiting schedule. R.D. informed the bailiff that the fourth applicant had also arrived at her home in order to collect the child on days which had not been in the visiting schedule. 79. The fourth applicant informed the bailiff on 28 October 2013 that he would not be in a position to meet his child for the foreseeable future owing to health problems. Thereafter, on 22 February 2014, without prior notice and on a day which was not part of the schedule for visits, he complained to the bailiff that R.D. and the child had not been at home when he had attempted to collect her. Subsequently, on 1 March 2014 and 25 April 2014 he failed to collect the child as scheduled. After being asked by the bailiff to state whether he wanted to resume contact with the child, the fourth applicant confirmed on 2 April 2014 that he did. 80. The bailiff fined R.D. on 13 May 2014 because she had failed since 22 March 2013 to hand the child over to the fourth applicant. The Stara Zagora Regional Court quashed the fine on 20 June 2014 in a final decision, finding that R.D. had not impeded enforcement. R.D. informed the bailiff that the fourth applicant had failed to collect the child on 11 June 2014 as scheduled. 81. In a final decision of 4 May 2015, the Stara Zagora Regional Court dismissed the complaint made by the fourth applicant in criminal proceedings he had brought against R.D. in July 2013. The court established that he had divorced R.D. without her knowledge in March 2012 and had continued living with her and the child until 15 June 2012. Immediately after learning later that month about the divorce and the contact regime, R.D. had sought to meet the fourth applicant in order to discuss and arrange his meetings with the child. He had not gone to a scheduled appointment at the end of June 2012 and had told R.D. over the telephone, something he had himself admitted to the prosecutor, that there was nothing to discuss with her. The court concluded that that demonstrated, on the one hand, R.D.’s willingness and readiness to comply with the contact regime and, on the other hand, the fourth applicant’s categorical refusal to have a dialogue with the child’s mother. 82. It was likewise established that after he had left the family home in June 2012 the applicant had not sought contact with the child for a number of months. He had also not called to ask about her well-being although that would have been fully compatible with his state of health at the time. That had led to the breakdown of his relationship with the child. Further, he had thereafter only sought contact with the child via forced enforcement proceedings in which he had gone to collect the child in the company of strangers. He had also at times sought meetings on days that had not been part of his visiting schedule while omitting to seek contact on days that had been set as part of the schedule.