Pravni položaj deteta u situacijama njegovognezakonitog odvođenja u zemlji i inostranstvu

Abstract

Dete je induvidua i imalac prava, među kojima su i pravo da živi sa roditeljima, pravo da održava lične odnose sa roditeljem sa kojim ne živi i pravo da izrazi svoje mišljenje. Promena prebivališta deteta kada roditelji ne žive zajedno ili kada zajednica života još traje, ali sa narušenim partnerskim odnosom, osetljiva je oblast koja prilikom regulisanja zahteva posebnu pažnju, jer neadekvatna rešenja stvaraju prostor za zloupotrebe uz istovremeno ugrožavanje položaja dece, kao najosetljivije kategorije lica. Po domaćem porodičnom pravu za promenu prebivališta deteta je uvek potrebna saglasnost oba roditelja, nezavisno od toga da li oni roditeljsko pravo vrše zajednički ili jedan od njih samostalno. Sa ovakvom regulativom nisu usklađene odredbe Zakona o prebivalištu i boravištu građana („Službeni glasnik RS“ broj 87/2011), Zakona o putnim ispravama („Službeni glasnik RS“ brojevi 90/2007, 116/2008, 104/2009, 76/2010, 62/2014 i 81/2019) I Zakona o graničnoj kontroli („Službeni glasnik RS“ broj 24/2018). Rezultati istraživanja koje je obuhvatilo skoro devetogodišnju praksu Apelacionog suda u Novom Sadu su pokazali da nije značajan broj postupaka za zakonito preseljenje deteta u drugo mesto u našoj zemlji ili pak u inostranstvo (ukupno 31 postupak). Sledom toga, izneto je mišljenje da roditelj koji želi sam da se preseli sa detetom uspeva da, suprotno domaćem porodičnom pravu, izvrši promenu prebivališta deteta osnovom rešenja koja su sadržana u druga 3 zakona, koja mu daju takva ovlašćenja. Na taj način po porodičnom pravu nezakoniti premeštaji deteta, rezultiraju pravnom i faktičkom promenom prebivališta deteta, a sve zbog neusklađenosti drugih zakona sa Porodičnim zakonom. Zbog navedenog u radu je dat predlog da se rešenja sadržana u navedena 3 zakona, koji su više administrativne prirode, usklade sa rešenjima Porodičnog zakona, koji je na sveobuhvatan način uredio porodične odnose, a sve u svrhu poboljšanja položaja deteta čija bi prava i najbolji interes onda bili zaštićeniji. Što se tiče nezakonitog preseljenja deteta, sprovedeno istraživanje, koje je obuhvatilo praksu 5 domaćih osnovnih sudova i ukupno 400 inostranih odluka, pokazalo je da je primena Haške konvencije kako u našoj zemlji, tako i u drugim zemljama ugovornicama praćena nedoumicama i različitim tumačenjima odredaba Konvencije, naročito onih koje se tiču razloga za odbijanje zahteva za povratak deteta. Situaciju u našoj zemlji dodatno otežava činjenica da ni nakon 28 godina nije donet poseban zakon koji bi uredio postupanje nadležnih organa po zahtevima podnetim po Konvenciji, a što je nužno radi pravne sigurnosti i zaštite interesa maloletne dece. Istraživanje pokazuje da je neophodno najpre donošenje posebnog zakona kako bi se poboljšao položaj deteta ako do nezakonitog odvođenja ipak dođe, a potom i edukacija postupajućeg kadra o predmetnoj materiji. Malobrojnost ovih postupaka ne sme biti razlog da ona izostane, imajući na umu da je centralni subjekt ovih postupaka dete.

Each child is an individual and a hоlder of rights such as the right to express its opinion, the right to live with its parents, and the right to maintain a personal relationship with a parent with whom the child does not live. Changing a child's domicile is a sensitive area when parents do not live together or when parents' cohabitation still lasts but with an irretrievable breakdown. Special attention must be provided during regulation as inadequate solutions create room for abuse while endangering the position of children who are considered the most vulnerable category. Under the domestic family law, both parents need to consent to change a child's domicile, regardless of whether parents exercise parental rights jointly or one of them independently. The provisions of the Act on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens („Official Gazette RS“ No. 87/2011), the Act on Travel Documents („Official Gazette RS“ Nos. 90/2007, 116/2008, 104/2009, 76/2010, 62/2014 and 81/2019) and the Act on Border Control („Official Gazette of RS“ No. 24/2018) are not harmonized with the provisions of the Serbian Family Act regarding change of child’s domicile. The study included nearly nine years of practice of the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad and showed that there is not a significant number of procedures for the relocation of children to another place in our country or abroad (a total of 31 procedures). Consequently, a conclusion was drawn that a parent who wants to move with a child manages to change the child's domicile based on the solutions contained in the other three acts which give the parent suchpowers but are not consistent with the domestic family law. Due to the incompatibility of other acts with the Serbian Family Act, relocations of children that are unlawful according to family law result in a legal and factual change of the child's domicile. Upon deeply researching the issue and reviewing the results, the study proposes that the solutions contained in the other three acts, which are more administrative in nature, harmonize with the solutions of the Serbian Family Act, which comprehensively regulates family relations, all in order to improve the position of a child whose rights and best interests will then be more protected. With regards to the unlawful relocation of a child, the research conducted included the practice of five domestic basic courts and a total of four hundred foreign decisions. These results showed that the application of the Hague Convention, both in Serbia and in other contracting countries, were accompanied by doubts and different interpretations of the Convention, particularly provisions which stipulate exceptions to the duty to secure the prompt return of children. The situation in Serbia is further aggravated by the fact that even after 28 years, the special act that would regulate procedure for return of a child under the Hague Convention has not been passed, which is necessary for legal security and protection of children. The research showed that it is necessary to first pass the special act in order to improve the position of a child if abduction still occurs and then to educate judges and lawyers about the subject matter. The small number of these proceedings must not be a reason for the absence of education, bearing in mind that a central subject of these proceedings is a child.