State Attorney’s Office in Osijek v. IZ
- 09/04/2026
- Kzd-22/2026-2
- District Court
Case details
Court identification
District Court
Any reference identifying the case
Kzd-22/2026-2
Date of ruling
09/04/2026
Parties involved
Relevant national law applied
Criminal Act (Official Gazette, No. 125/11, 144/12, 56/15, 61/15, 101/17, 118/18, 126/19, 84/21, 114/22, 114/23 i 36/2024, 136/25), Article 174(4)
Convention provision(s)
N/A
Status of decision
Final decision
Publication link
Outcome
By the judgment, the defendant IZ is found guilty of having taken her child PZ from the foster family ZZ, to whom the child had been entrusted and with whom the child had been placed by the decision of the Municipal Court in Osijek, R1 Ob-186/2026 of 11 March 2025. As a parent, the defendant removed the child from the person to whom the child had been entrusted, with the aim of having the child leave the territory of the Republic of Croatia, and thereby committed the criminal offence against marriage, family and children — child abduction under Article 174(1) and (4) of the Criminal Code. She is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year and, pursuant to Article 56(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code, a suspended sentence is imposed on her, whereby the sentence of imprisonment for a term of one year to which she has been sentenced shall not be executed if the defendant does not commit a new criminal offence during a probation period of three years.
Abstract
The Osijek Municipal State Attorney’s Office indicted IZ for the criminal offence of child abduction under Article 174(1) and (4) of the Criminal Code. It requested the issuance of a penal order finding her guilty and imposing a one-year prison sentence, suspended for a probation period of three years. Alternatively, if the penal order were not accepted or were challenged, the prosecution proposed the same one-year prison sentence, suspended for a probation period of four years. The court found that the request met the statutory requirements and that the evidence justified issuing the penal order. The evidence included witness testimony, decisions concerning the child’s temporary placement with a foster family, police documentation relating to international cooperation and an Interpol search, and information from the Serbian authorities concerning the location of the missing person. The defendant had also admitted committing the offence. The court therefore accepted the prosecution’s request and issued the penal order. IZ was also ordered to pay EUR 70 in criminal proceedings costs after the judgment becomes final.
The mother was habitually resident in Germany and presumably took the child to Serbia. This assumption is supported by the fact that cooperation with the Serbian authorities resulted in the mother being located there. There is no indication that the proceedings were conducted under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.