CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC6BCF4B7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF7876111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD53A5F9E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:115% } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .s962E769A { width:208.79pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s34F8BE62 { width:213.13pt; display:inline-block }       SECOND SECTION           CASE OF RINAU v. LITHUANIA   (Application no. 10926/09)           JUDGMENT     Art 8 • Family life • International child abduction • Authorities’ failure to act with required fairness and promptitude • Political pressure on courts and child-care authorities • Respondent State providing legal and financial support to abducting parent       STRASBOURG   14 January 2020     FINAL   14/05/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rinau v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Saadet Yüksel, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   10926/09) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr Michael Rinau (“the first applicant”) and a Lithuanian and German national, Ms   Luisa Rinau (“the second applicant”), on 24   February 2009. 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms N.   Bümlein, a lawyer practising in Berlin. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   K.   Bubnytė. 3.     The applicants alleged mainly that the Lithuanian authorities’ failure to act in a timely fashion and in application of Council Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003 and the Hague Convention of 25   October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction constituted a violation of their right for respect for their family life and a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants also complained that the decision-making in their case had been politicised and that this was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the latter Convention. 4.     On 9   June 2016 the application was communicated to the Government. At the same time, the German Government were invited to intervene as a third party (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), but they did not express their intention to do so. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The first applicant was born in 1969. The second applicant is his daughter; she was born in 2005 (also see paragraph 8 below). They live in Bergfelde, Germany. 6.     In July 2003 the first applicant married a Lithuanian citizen, I.R. They lived in Bergfelde, Germany, where their marriage was registered. The spouses also chose German law to be applicable to their marriage. 7.     From a previous marriage I.R. had an older son, E.M., who was born in 1992. 8 .     On 11 January 2005 a daughter, Luisa (the second applicant), was born to the couple in Germany. Parental responsibility was exercised jointly by both parents. In the course of March 2005 the spouses began living separately. The child remained with her mother but maintained frequent contact with her father. At a later stage, divorce proceedings were initiated by the first applicant before the Oranienburg District Court ( Amtsgericht Oranienburg ) in Germany. 9.     In May 2005 the second applicant was issued with a German passport. A.     Proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 10 .     On 21 July 2006, the first applicant agreed that his wife should take their daughter to Lithuania for two weeks’ holiday, on condition that she return to Germany by 6 August 2006. 11 .     When the child and mother did not return to Germany, the first applicant started court proceedings in Germany. An arrest warrant in respect of I.R. was issued by the German authorities. 12 .     On 14 August 2006 the Oranienburg District Court terminated the mother’s joint custody of their daughter and awarded provisional custody to the applicant until divorce proceedings were completed. The German court also granted the first applicant the exclusive right to decide questions relating to his daughter’s passport. 13 .     That decision was upheld by the Brandenburg Regional Court ( Oberlandesgericht ) on 11   October 2006, which dismissed an appeal by I.R. 14 .     On 30 October 2006 the first applicant asked the Klaipėda Regional Court in Lithuania for a permit allowing him to take his daughter back to Germany. He relied on the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (see paragraph 145 below), and also on Council Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003 (also known as “the Brussels II bis Regulation”, hereafter “Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003”; for the text see paragraph 150 below). 15 .     On 15 November 2006 the State Child Rights and Adoption Service under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour ( Valstybės vaiko teisių apsaugos ir įvaikinimo tarnyba prie Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministerijos ; hereafter “the State Child Rights and Adoption Service”), which is also the “Central Authority” within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003 (see paragraphs 134 and 150 below), announced its conclusion regarding the second applicant’s return. The child care authority noted that the girl had lived in Germany until being taken to Lithuania and that I.R. had kept the child in Lithuania unlawfully. The child care specialists had talked to I.R., but could not persuade her to return the child to Germany and had concluded that the child had not yet reached an age at which it would be reasonable to hear her opinion. The child care specialists noted, on the one hand, that the child had been examined, on I.R.’s initiative, by child development specialists at Vilnius University Hospital, and those specialists had considered that separation of the child from her mother and brother at that moment would negatively affect the girl’s emotional health and potentially cause problems for her development. On the other hand, there was no proof that the first applicant would not be capable of taking care of his daughter or that any other kind of harm might be caused to her upon her return to Germany. The child care specialists also pointed out that, pursuant to Article 11 § 4 of Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003, “a court cannot refuse to return a child on the basis of Article 13 (b) of the 1980 Hague Convention if it is established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his or her return” (see paragraph 150 below). Accordingly, even if the court were to establish that there was a substantial risk that the girl would sustain psychological harm if returned to Germany, it should in addition verify whether German institutions would take appropriate measures to protect the girl’s interests after her return. It also transpires from the documents in the case that the representatives of the State Child Rights and Adoption Service reiterated that view during the court hearing. 16.     I.R., who was represented by a lawyer, V.Š., admitted before the Klaipėda Regional Court that it was definitely not her intention to return to Germany. Neither did she agree that the second applicant should be returned there but argued that her daughter should stay with her in Lithuania because a mother’s care was very important for a child. The first applicant was also present at that hearing, together with a lawyer. 17 .     By a ruling of 22   December 2006, the Klaipėda Regional Court refused the first applicant’s request. It held that because of the girl’s bond with her mother I.R. and brother E.M., her return to Germany ‒ where her mother might be arrested, even if only temporarily ‒ could cause the child serious psychological harm. As to E.M., he had a psychological ailment and refused to return to Germany, and I.R. could not leave him alone in Lithuania. For the first-instance court, this constituted grounds not to return the second applicant under Article   13   (b) of the Hague Convention. The Klaipėda Regional Court considered that the second applicant’s habitual place of residence, and thus her familiar and safe environment ‒ which was Lithuania ‒ could be changed only if there was a court decision regarding her custody. 18.     It transpires from the documents before the court that in January 2007 the second applicant was issued with a permit granting her permanent residence in Lithuania. That same month I.R. declared her daughter’s place of residence to be Klaipėda, Lithuania. 19 .     On 15   March 2007 the Court of Appeal granted an appeal lodged by the first applicant and quashed the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal noted that although I.R., who at that stage was represented by a lawyer K.L., had taken her daughter to Lithuania lawfully − because she had the father’s agreement − her choice not to return the child to Germany and instead to keep her in Lithuania was unlawful both under Article 3 of the Hague Convention and under Article   2 §   11 of Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003. Such unlawful retention of the child in a place which was not her habitual place of residence breached the custody rights of the first applicant, who had taken care of the second applicant before she was taken to Lithuania and who intended to continue taking care of her in future. The first applicant noted that on 2 January 2007 the criminal proceedings against I.R. had been discontinued in Germany and that, since those proceedings had been brought on the basis of a private prosecution, they could not be repeatedly reopened. The Court of Appeal pointed out that since the criminal proceedings instituted against I.R. for unlawful retention of the child had been discontinued in Germany, there was no reason to believe that, if returned to Germany, the child would be separated from her mother. The Court of Appeal also noted that the proceedings in the Lithuanian courts were concerned only with the return of the child, who was being retained unlawfully in Lithuania, and not with questions relating to the child’s custody, such as the possibility of her living with her brother or her mother. This was a principle that likewise had its origins in Article 19 of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 145 below). In fact, as noted in the preamble to the Hague Convention, its aim was to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention (ibid.). Moreover, there was no reason to doubt that a competent court in Germany would be capable of properly evaluating factual circumstances relating to matters of custody. The Court of Appeal observed that a consequence of unlawful removal was that the person with custody rights lost the possibility of exercising those rights in the child’s place of residence. The child, for her part, was deprived of that person’s care in a place that used to be her habitual place of residence. Accordingly, harm was caused to both the person with custody rights and the child and would continue until a lawful state of affairs was restored. 20 .     The Court of Appeal also noted that the burden of proof in demonstrating a grave risk that the child’s return would expose her to harm lay with the person who was objecting to the return. In the instant case, although − as noted in the report of the Klaipėda University Pedagogical Faculty social science (psychology) specialists − the return of the second applicant might cause her psychological hardship ( psichologiniai sunkumai ), there was no reason to believe that such hardship would amount to an intolerable situation or exceed the normal distress which the return of a small child to his or her country of origin would cause. Accordingly, there was no reason to apply Article 13   (b) of the Hague Convention. 21 .     The Court of Appeal ordered I.R. to return her daughter to Germany by 15   April 2007. In the event of her failure to do that, it would be for a Lithuanian bailiff to transfer the girl to her father in Klaipėda and in the presence of the Klaipėda child care authority. 22.     Under Article   2 §   6 of the Law on the Implementation of EC Regulation No. 2201/2003 (see paragraph   134 below, which also contains the full title of this law), the decision of the Court of Appeal was final, that is to say, not amenable to an appeal on points of law. Under Article 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”), it also became enforceable from the day of its adoption (see paragraph   136 below). 23.     On 23   April 2007 the Klaipėda Regional Court, accepting a plea by I.R. that she and her son E.M. needed more time to prepare themselves psychologically for the girl’s return to her father, issued an order suspending enforcement of the Court of Appeal decision. The Klaipėda Regional Court disregarded the first applicant’s pleading that as early as 22 March 2007 he had contacted the child care authorities in Klaipėda and the State Child Rights and Adoption Service with an offer in good faith to help I.R. to execute the Court of Appeal ruling of 15   March 2007, including helping her financially to travel to and stay in Germany during the transfer of the child, but I.R. had rejected those proposals, seeking to delay the execution proceedings and abusing her procedural rights. 24 .     By a ruling of 4   June 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision of 23   April 2007. The appellate court noted, on the one hand, that the situation referred to by I.R. – that the second applicant’s return would be harmful for I.R. and for her son E.M. ‒ could last indefinitely. On the other hand, there was no evidence that returning the child to her father within the time-limit set earlier would cause her any harm or not be in her interests, nor had this been the conclusion of the first-instance court. The paramount concern was to protect the interests of the child, who was being held in Lithuania unlawfully, and any delay in executing the court decision for her return ran counter to the Court’s ample case-law concerning States’ positive obligations in this field. 25 .     According to the documents submitted by the Government, on 18   May 2007 I.R. signed an agreement with the law office of K.Č. and R.B., whereby I.R. agreed to pay 300 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 87   euros (EUR)) per hour for representation in the case concerning the second applicant’s return to Germany. The lawyers in question took on the obligation to represent I.R. in the Lithuanian courts up to the level of the Supreme Court. B.     The bailiff’s attempts to execute the Court of Appeal decision of 15   March 2007 for the second applicant’s return in 2007 26 .     Given that I.R. had not returned the second applicant within the prescribed time-limit, on 13   June 2007 at the first applicant’s request the Klaipėda Regional Court issued a writ of execution ( vykdomasis raštas ) which stated that “I.R. [was] obliged to return the second applicant to Germany before 15 April 2007 [see paragraph 21 above]. Should the court order for the transfer not be executed before that date, it is for the bailiff to take measures, in accordance with the rules set out in the Code of Civil Procedure, by taking the second applicant from I.R. and transferring the girl in Klaipėda city on a date agreed with the first applicant, and in the presence of the Klaipėda city child care authorities”. 27.     In addition, on 9   July 2007 the first applicant presented the bailiff with a letter in which he stated that, in order to protect his daughter’s interests and to protect her from any harm during the transfer process − and also wishing to help I.R. to voluntarily execute the court decision for the girl’s return − he proposed to cover all costs for I.R. and the child related to their travel to Germany. He also proposed that he would provide I.R. with financial support and somewhere to live in Germany until she could find herself a place to live, and would also help her with other organisational matters. The first applicant also presented the bailiff with a document from a private company in Germany which agreed to employ I.R. 28 .     On 9 July 2007 the bailiff drew up an order ( patvarkymas ), asking I.R. to explain how she envisaged that the court decision could be executed in a friendly way. 29 .     The first applicant then wrote to the bailiff stating that he would arrive in Lithuania for the transfer, and asked the bailiff to make arrangements for that transfer to take place on 30 July 2007. On that date the bailiff issued the decision that the transfer would take place on 3 August 2007, with the participation of the Klaipėda city child care authorities. However, the bailiff could not subsequently serve that decision on I.R. because she could not be found at either her home address in Klaipėda or her place of work at Klaipėda University nor could she be reached on her telephone. On 3   August 2007 the bailiff announced that a search would be launched for I.R. and the second applicant, and informed the police of this fact. I.R. contacted the bailiff on 5   September 2007, stating that in August she had been on holiday and claiming that she had not been avoiding the bailiff. The bailiff therefore called off the search. On 5 September 2007 he again ordered I.R. to bring the second applicant to Klaipėda city child care authorities’ premises on 12   September for her transfer to the first applicant. 30 .     As confirmed by the bailiff and also by the signatures of the first applicant, of I.R., and of the representative of the Klaipėda child care authority, I.R. arrived at the meeting on 12   September 2007, but refused to execute the court decision for the second applicant’s transfer, or to disclose her daughter’s whereabouts. The bailiff also noted that the first applicant had asked I.R. to give him the opportunity to communicate with their daughter, but I.R. had refused that request. On the same day, the bailiff announced a police search for the second applicant, and asked the Klaipėda City District Court to decide whether I.R. should be issued with a fine for having ignored the court decision. 31 .     The court decisions on file also show that on 11   September 2007 the bailiff refused I.R’s request to suspend the execution proceedings, despite I.R.’s submission that separation would be traumatic because of the second applicant’s close family ties to her and to her brother. 32 .     The Klaipėda Regional Court on 4   December 2007 upheld the Klaipėda City District Court’s decision of 23   October 2007, and underlined that the merits of the question of the second applicant’s return had already been decided by the Court of Appeal ruling of 15   March 2007 (see paragraphs 19-21 above). After the latter decision, I.R.’s attempts to have the merits of the question re ‑ examined − at the stage when the bailiff was executing the court decision   − by invoking Article 13 § 1 (b) of the Hague Convention, had no basis in law. The Klaipėda Regional Court also pointed out that on 4 June 2007 the Court of Appeal had already examined the question of whether execution of the decision to return the second applicant could be suspended on the grounds of I.R.’s son’s state of health and his separation from the second applicant, but had dismissed the request as unfounded (see paragraph   24 above). Accordingly, such arguments could not be examined again. 33.     I.R. appealed against the bailiff’s decision, but her complaint was dismissed by the Klaipėda City District Court on 23 October 2007. I.R. then lodged a further appeal, to which the first applicant responded that by such actions I.R. was abusing her procedural rights and being dishonest. 34 .     Afterwards, having received the 22   October 2007 ruling of the Supreme Court’s President ordering suspension of the execution of the Court of Appeal ruling of 15   March 2007 (see paragraph 73 below), on 29   October 2007 the bailiff issued a decision ( patvarkymas ) suspending execution of the second applicant’s return to the first applicant and also halting the search for the second applicant. C.     The public interest in the case in Lithuania and State authorities’ and politicians’ comments and other involvement in the matter, as submitted essentially by the applicants 35 .     The applicants submitted numerous pieces of evidence showing the public interest in their case and the Lithuanian State authorities’ and politicians’ involvement in it, including statements of various officials, official documents of Lithuanian and European Union institutions, and publications in various Lithuanian Government Internet sites and the media. The facts constituting the evidence submitted by the applicants were not challenged by the Government and are also corroborated by the information available from the public sources (see also paragraph 210 below). 36 .     As noted by the applicants, as early as 6   December 2006 and in a television documentary entitled “ SOS Pagalba ” (translated as “SOS Help”), G.A., who was the director of the Klaipėda child care authority, made the following comments regarding the applicants’ situation (regarding her subsequent position see also paragraph 60 below): “How can a mother be accused of kidnapping her own child? Father and mother must both take care of the child. And if there is a conflict situation in the family, then that can only be resolved in court.” “As a mother I say that this is not a good step to take. I believe that the child has to grow up with his or her mother and stay in contact with the father. This is my opinion.” “This mother is right – it is her child, and we should all make an effort to help her.” “I am asking myself – what abduction? The mother has taken her child along with her. I would do the same, no one could take my child away from me.” 37 .     According to information published on 5   April 2007 on the Internet site of the Seimas (the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania), A.L., who was the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Human Rights, commented that “Lithuania was not ready to defend the rights of Lithuanian citizens who had married foreigners or the rights of their children”. After the investigation which the Committee conducted on the basis of I.R.’s request, the Chairman considered that in the applicants’ case the child care specialists had acted only formally, having failed to evaluate the impact which the return to Germany could have on the second applicant. He also “rhetorically asked”: “the Hague Convention of 1980 and the Council Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003 formally oblige to return [the second applicant] to her country of origin in order to avoid consequences negative for the child. However, if one would disregard the formal law, what harm could being with a loving mother cause to a two year old child?” According to the information on the Seimas Internet site, the Committee also discussed such questions as the “problem of Lithuania’s international engagements”, the European Union law which led to the situation where “the mothers from eastern Europe countries, after marriage in the West and having given birth there, lose the right to a child, when a man from western Europe turns them out of the family”. The Chairman also considered that there was no institution in Lithuania that would be effective in defending a child’s interests on an international scale. 38 .     On 7 September 2007 the press also quoted a public statement by V.A.A., a member of the Seimas who belonged to the Homeland Union ( Tėvynės Sąjunga ) political party and who, according to her CV on the Seimas website, had an educational background in music and whose interests included “family politics, children’s rights and human rights ( angažuojasi šeimos politikos, vaiko teisių ir žmogaus teisių srityse )”. She was also a member of the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs ( Teisės ir teisetvarkos komitetas ) and the Seimas Committee on European Affairs ( Europos reikalų komitetas ). V.A.A. claimed to be “very much concerned” with the conclusions that had been provided by the State Child Rights and Adoption Service as well as its position during the court proceedings regarding the second applicant’s return to Germany (see paragraph 15 above). V.A.A. pointed out that the State Child Rights and Adoption Service was the “Central Authority” under the Hague Convention and under Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003 and that, pursuant to Article 2 § 3 of the Law on the Implementation of EC Regulation No. 2201/2003, its role was to provide a conclusion for submission to the court hearing the case for a child’s return (see paragraph 134 below). However, her impression was that the State Child Rights and Adoption Service had only formally defended the rights and interests of the second applicant and had essentially supported the arguments of the first applicant, who had asked the courts to order that his daughter be returned to Germany. V.A.A. underlined that the conclusions provided by the State Child Rights and Adoption Service “had influence on ( įtakoja )” court decisions. It was therefore of paramount importance that those conclusions should be “just ( teisingos )”: the State Child Rights and Adoption Service should not only formally rely on the norms of international conventions. In V.A.A.’s view, analysing the factual situation, one could not comprehend how the State Child Rights and Adoption Service could have agreed to the second applicant’s return to Germany, given that before leaving for Lithuania she had lived most of her life with her mother, and had now lived most of her life in Lithuania. The parliamentarian also opined that, since the second applicant had been only one and a half years old when she left Germany, her connection with the environment there had been minimal. In Lithuania, however, she had already established close connections with other members of her (Lithuanian) family and had become used to that environment. The member of the Seimas considered that the second applicant’s return to Germany would thus put the child in an intolerable situation, and would possibly cause irreparable damage to her mental and other development. V.A.A. stated that she had read the conclusion of the State Child Rights and Adoption Service which it had submitted to the court but considered that the Service had not taken the relevant circumstances properly into account and therefore “had not performed its main function and task”, and “in this particular case” had failed “to protect the rights and lawful interests” of the second applicant. V.A.A. thus urged the State Child Rights and Adoption Service to properly carry out its functions when protecting the second applicant’s interests, also pointing out that that institution was overseen by the Ministry of Social Security and Labour. 39 .     By means of a written request dated 7 September 2007, six members of the Seimas elected in the constituencies of the Klaipėda region or those who stood for parliamentary elections in those constituencies and/or lived there (V.Č., V.G., V.S., A.S., I.Š. and I.Ro.) submitted a written request to the bailiff in charge of executing the Lithuanian court’s order for the transfer of the girl into her father’s custody, asking him to refrain from carrying out that duty. The parliamentarians stated that they intended to petition the President of the Republic and the Minister of Justice, requesting that the girl not be returned to her father. 40 .     On 9 September 2007 the President of the Republic wrote to the first applicant, stating that he was very much aware of the case, which had attracted wide media attention. However, the President highlighted that he could not exert any influence over the courts or provide any kind of recommendation as to how cases should be decided, for to do so would be unconstitutional. The President also pointed out that, whilst understanding how important a court decision was in the first applicant’s case, he had never expressed his view publicly in order not to breach the principle of the independence of the courts. The President expected that the case would be examined objectively, taking into account the interests and needs of the second applicant. 41 .     On 21 September 2007, a group of forty-one members of the Seimas, on the initiative of the Seimas Committee on Human Rights, asked the Constitutional Court to examine the question of whether Article 2 §   6 of the Law on the Implementation of EC Regulation No. 2201/2003 ‒ pursuant to which no appeal on points of law was possible in cases concerning a child’s return effected under that Regulation (see paragraph   134 below)   ‒   contradicted the constitutional principle of the rule of law. 42 .     In that context, the press also quoted another member of the Seimas Committee on Human Rights, A.Sa., who also signed a petition seeking referral of the question to the Constitutional Court and stated that he did “not understand how such a situation was possible. Maybe the German courts adopt ( priima ) reasonable decisions, but this is a precedent which the Constitutional Court should examine. Lithuania is a member of the European Union, and there are plenty of such marriages. Does that mean that we shall always give in and our children will always be taken away to foreign countries?” 43 .     The Constitutional Court initially accepted the request for examination but, two years later, in December 2009, it discontinued the proceedings because on 13   November 2008 the Seimas had adopted a new Law on the Implementation of EC Regulation No. 2201/2003, and the former law ceased to be applicable (see paragraph 134 in fine below). 44 .     According to the Lithuanian news agency ELTA, in September 2007 members of the Liberals’ Movement ( Liberalų Sąjūdis ) political faction in the Seimas asked the President of the Republic to examine the possibility of granting Luisa Rinau Lithuanian citizenship urgently and by way of exception (see paragraph 132 below). 45 .     According to the report of the Seimas Committee on Human Rights activity for the period 10 September 2007 to 1 February 2008 − approved at the Committee’s meeting of 13 March 2008 − on 10 October 2007, exercising parliamentary oversight as regards the protection of children’s rights in the context of Lithuania’s international agreements, the Committee discussed, inter alia , the question “Regarding the quality of the actions of the child care authorities’ employees and the possibility of providing legal aid for Lithuanian citizens in the German courts”. The Committee considered that the conclusions which the State Child Rights and Adoption Service had presented to the Lithuanian courts regarding the second applicant’s return to her place of origin – Germany – had not reflected accurately the social situation of the second applicant, had not evaluated her connection with her mother and brother, and various other aspects. The Committee considered that such “an inappropriate conclusion” had done “irreparable harm to the interests of the child, and could also influence court decisions in Germany”. The Committee, having taken into account the harm which had been caused by the child care authorities’ formal attitude ( formalus požiūris ) towards the interests of the child, demanded that the Minister of Social Security and Labour (who supervised that child care authority), declare that those employees had not performed their duties correctly and also order the child care authority to submit another conclusion which would fully reflect the social situation of the second applicant, and also evaluate the expert conclusions regarding possible damage to the girl’s mental state should she be returned to Germany. 46 .     In that context, on 20 September 2007 members of the Liberals’ Movement in the Seimas had met the employees of the State Child Rights and Adoption Service “who had personally taken part in deciding Luisa’s fate”. According to the press article on the internet portal AINA ( Aukštaitijos naujienų ir žinių portalas ) on the same day under the heading “Luisa’s story – an example of Lithuanian institutions’ failure to act ( Luisos istorija – Lietuvos institucijų neveiklumo pavyzdys )”, the members of the Liberals’ Movement political faction had been inquiring what steps the responsible authorities would take so that the second applicant’s story would have a happy ending, and “what they would do to truly help the children of Lithuania in protecting their interests ( ką darys kad realiai padėti Lietuvos vaikams )”. The article quoted G.Š., a member of the Seimas Committee on Human Rights who belonged to the Liberals’ Movement, as having greeted the State Child Rights and Adoption Service employees at that meeting with the statement “My dears, you are wishing to wash off your tainted tunic ( Mielosios, jūs norite nusiplauti savo suteptą mundurą )” and having accused them of lacking patriotism. He was quoted as having said that “the ambivalence, lack of action and lack of simple humanity ( abejingumas, neveiklumas ir paprasčiausio žmogiškumo stygius ) of the State child care and adoption institution makes one angry – whereas that institution should be defending the rights and interests of the child, defending a Lithuanian citizen. We must ascertain whether such employees are fit for their job”. The same article quoted another member of the Liberals’ Movement, D.T., who urged the State Child Rights and Adoption Service employees to put all their efforts into protecting the interests of the girl and asked “how come we are so stubborn as to not comprehend that the link between the mother and the child, responsibility for the well-being of the child, the child’s safety, link to the family and the homeland – as a great virtue – has not changed and never will change?...”. The article also stated that “the Liberals’ Movement faction has asked the President of the Republic to consider whether he could grant Lithuanian citizenship to the daughter of Lithuanian citizen I.R., who was born in Germany, by way of exception and as a matter of particular urgency ( išimties ir ypatingos skubos tvarka )” (also see paragraph 44 above). 47 .     The Seimas Committee on Human Rights also asked the Ministry of Justice to provide quality legal help to I.R. and to request that the case be moved for examination from the German courts to the Lithuanian courts, “protecting the mother’s right to raise her daughter in Lithuania”. 48 .     The Committee’s initiative was reported in the media. On 10   October 2007 Internet news portal (www.delfi.lt) quoted the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Human Rights A.L., who elaborated that “I think the employees of the [Ministry of Social Security and Labour and Ministry of Justice] will obey the ministers’ proposals ( šių ministerijų darbuotojai paklus ministrų siūlymams ), and that the courts will also have the decency ( teismai turės garbingumo ) to reopen this case if the Prosecutor General’s Office asks for the case to be reopened on the grounds that new circumstances have appeared”. The Chairman was also reported as having stated that since March 2007 the Seimas Committee on Human Rights had tried to exert influence that every institution would perform its job properly. He also stated that if within a year the bailiff had not executed the court decision ordering the girl’s transfer, the German courts should transfer the case to the Lithuanian courts to be examined in Lithuania. 49 .     The same article of 10 October 2007 also quoted the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights, R.Š., who stated: “From the very beginning the position of the Ombudsman’s Office was that the child should be with the mother. Everywhere we talk about a family – three persons, that the mother cannot choose one child. In this situation the children would be separated. Even our laws on child adoption state that if we have brothers or sisters, one should search for adoptive parents so that siblings would not be separated. And here we have a situation when we ourselves in some way are assisting to separate the children. The children should live together – we should search for ways and possibilities for allowing them to remain in Lithuania”. The Ombudsman also pointed out that if I.R. had gone to Germany to be present at the court hearings where the question of custody was being decided [which I.R. had not done], the process would perhaps not be so “painful” now. 50 .     In both instances – in spring and autumn 2007 (see paragraphs   37, 45, 47 and 48 above) − the Seimas Committee on Human Rights was presided over by A.L., who belonged to the Liberals’ and Centre Union ( Liberalų ir Centro Sąjunga ). In August 2008 I.R. became candidate no.   30 on the list of the Liberals’ and Centre Union in the Seimas election which was to take place in October 2008. 51 .     On 13 September 2007 V.M., the Chairman of one of political factions in the Seimas, sent a letter to P.B., the Minister of Justice, asking him to pay attention to “the court decisions that had shaken the whole of Lithuania ( sukrėtė visą Lietuvą ) and that had been widely reported in the press”, pursuant to which a minor child was to be taken away from I.R. and against her mother’s will to be sent to a father who lived in Germany. V.M. wrote to the Minister of Justice asking him “to properly ascertain ( visapusiškai išsiaiškinti ) whether the court decisions have been just and lawful, even though it was plain that they contradicted elementary logic and were not humane. If the laws of our country treat such actions [namely court decisions ordering transfer of the second applicant to the first applicant] as lawful, I would ask you to initiate legislative amendments so that similar situations can be avoided in future”. V.M. also stated that “although laws were written by people, and those laws had to serve people, the State could not remain a bystander when because of dramatic circumstances human fates were being broken ( laužomi žmonių likimai ), and children have been suffering”. 52 .     According to the press statement on 21   September 2007 released by the Ministry of Justice, the Minister of Justice P.B. had asked the State Guaranteed Legal Aid Service in Klaipėda to provide I.R. with free legal aid in so far as this was possible ( pagal galimybes ). 53 .     The applicants’ story was widely reported in the media, including newspapers printing readers’ opinions. For example, on 21   September 2007, Lietuvos rytas , one of the biggest daily newspapers in Lithuania, published an article “The story of a Klaipėda resident [I.R.] – warning to other Lithuanian women”. Under that headline the daily printed letters containing statements such as “A mother had a moral right to defend herself by any means, even to murder the bailiff, should he attempt to take the child by force. Moral right is above legal right”, “It is unbelievable that Lithuania cannot defend its citizen. What kind of laws, what kind of lawyers? What is the Ministry of Justice doing?”, “A heart-breaking story. Isn’t there anyone who could defend the woman and the child? Lithuanians, wake up, do not remain unmoved, do not be blind followers of the law”. 54 .     On 26   September 2007 the first applicant wrote to the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights, R.Š. He stated that he wished to settle the question of the second applicant’s return peacefully, and that he did not wish to bring the details of his case into the public domain, in order to protect both the second applicant and her brother, who was ill, and whom the first applicant had taken care of in Germany. The first applicant was therefore particularly disturbed by what had been happening in Lithuanian politics and society regarding his case. He noted, in particular, that members of the Seimas had been exerting pressure on the Lithuanian bailiff not to execute the court decision (see paragraph 39 above). The first applicant wondered whether the Seimas had assumed the powers of the courts, since its politicians − who had not seen the evidentiary material in his case file − had been ignoring court decisions which, all the more so, complied with international law. The first applicant also stated that the politicians had been supporting the exertion of psychological pressure on him and that the Lithuanian newspapers had been printing readers’ letters where he had been demonised and called “a German pig”, “Nazi”, “fascist” and “a criminal”; there had also been public calls for violent action ( susidoroti ) towards him, the court bailiff and the first applicant’s lawyer. He was asking, rhetorically, which of the politicians would take responsibility should something happen? 55.     In that letter the first applicant also noted that he had not been able to see his daughter in Lithuania since December 2006, because I.R. had been hiding her. He had still been able to talk to his daughter via the Internet in January and February 2007, but afterwards I.R. had banned that contact as well. He also pointed out that the Lithuanian media had failed to depict his case objectively, since they had not mentioned the international courts’ practice regarding the Hague Convention, which applied equally to fathers and mothers. The first applicant also submitted that most of the expert reports on which I.R. had relied had been prepared by experts from Klaipėda University, where I.R. had worked for a long time (also see paragraph 29 above). He expressed sadness at what had become of the Lithuanian legal system: that international treaties had been signed but not adhered to because to follow them was “inconvenient”; that a father had very few rights in Lithuania; that the politicians had been publicly supporting smear campaigns or being ambivalent towards him. He noted that, if Lithuania had not signed the Hague Convention, his only option would have been to observe helplessly as his daughter became distant from him, but that now he had a right to fight for his daughter. The first applicant expressed hope that the decisions of the Court of Appeal would be respected and executed and that Lithuania would fulfil its obligations under international law. 56 .     On 15 October 2007 I.R. met P.B., the Minister of Justice of Lithuania. The Minister promised her free legal aid in the proceedings concerning her daughter’s return to Germany. I.R. also stated to the press that “there is a legal possibility that court proceedings regarding the second applicant’s custody might be transferred from Germany to Lithuania. I asked the Minister of Justice to act as intermediary in this matter ( prašiau tarpininkavimo ), but the Minister stated that he could not help. He implied that I myself should do that with the help of a lawyer ( esą tai galiu padaryti aš pati su advokato pagalba ).” 57 .     By October 2007, almost 35,000 Lithuanian citizens had signed a petition entitled “For Luisa” demanding that the girl not be returned to her father in Germany. The petition referred both to Lithuanian legislation and to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and argued that it was in the girl’s best interests for her to stay with her mother in a familiar environment in Lithuania. The petition was addressed to the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights and Germany’s ambassador to Lithuania. 58 .     In that context, in October 2007 I.R. professed in the Lithuanian press that “[I]n our country mother and child are sacred and inseparable. It is unfortunate that this principle is not being followed by the courts ( mūsų šalyje mama ir vaikas yra šventa, nedaloma. Gaila, kad šia nuostata nesivadovauja teismai )”. 59 .     In October 2007 the press also reported that I.R. had visited the prosecutor’s office in Klaipėda that month, where she had been invited for a conversation. The prosecutor D.P. noted that lawyer G.B. (see paragraph   101 below) had been defending I.R.’s interests at that time. The prosecutor also noted that the prosecutors’ office’s support for I.R. so far “had only been of a moral nature ( kol kas tiktai moralinė )”, but that the complicated matter could possibly be resolved if the laws on dual citizenship were amended. The prosecutor stated that “if the second applicant were to become a Lithuanian citizen, maybe it would be possible to help her somehow. We must explore all possibilities.” 60 .     In October 2007 the press also quoted G.A., the director of the Klaipėda child care authority, as saying that she had attempted to persuade the first applicant to renounce custody rights in respect of the second applicant but had been unsuccessful. The director stated that the first applicant had been categorical, but that it also appeared that he “genuinely loved his daughter”. 61 .     On 19 September 2007 the press reported that I.R. would have to hide her daughter not only from her father, but also from Lithuanian police, since the bailiff had undertaken to announce a police search for her (see paragraph   29 above). The press also wrote that “from unofficial sources it is known that in these days I.R. intends to travel to Vilnius, to approach the highest civil servants and politicians, and in this manner fight for the right to bring up her daughter herself”. 62 .     On 3   June 2008 the Minister of Justice P.B. met I.R. According to the Ministry of Justice press release, th