CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 7   April   2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no 17842/16 Snežana GLAVACKA against Latvia lodged on 4   April   2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     In 2005 the applicant, a Latvian national, moved to Ireland where in 2008 she gave birth to D.A, a Latvian national. The applicant was not married but in October 2011 she signed a statutory declaration according to which R.A., an Irish national, was declared as D.A.’s father. By signing the declaration both parents agreed on joint guardianship. It appears that since 2012 the applicant and D.A. lived separately from R.A. who occasionally visited the child. A.     Proceedings under the Hague Convention in Latvia 2.     In February 2015 the applicant lost her job in Ireland. After unsuccessful attempts to find another employment, in December 2015 the applicant moved to Riga together with D.A. 3.     On 3   February 2016 the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court upheld R.A.’s request to return the child to Ireland under the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction (“the Hague Convention”). 4.     On 21   March 2016 the Riga Regional Court upheld the order according to which the applicant had to return the child to Ireland by 20   April   2016. 5.     By applying the Hague Convention and the Council Regulation (EC) No.   2201/2003 on jurisdiction in family-law matters, the domestic courts established that both parents had joint custody of the child whose place of residence before the removal was Ireland. The courts did not assess the applicant’s arguments about the child’s settling in Latvia on the grounds that less than one year had passed since the wrongful removal from Ireland. In this relation the national courts noted that the child had lived in Ireland since his birth and that he had stayed in Latvia only three months. 6.     Both levels of domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s arguments that the return would constitute an immediate psychological harm to the child. Having noted that the applicant did not have means to reside in Ireland and that, according to the applicant, R.A. had not financially supported the child, the domestic courts concluded that these arguments felt outside the scope of the present proceedings. In this regard the Riga Regional Court observed that R.A. had a three-bedroom house in Ireland and that he was working as a chef at a college. 7.     In reply to the applicant’s argument about R.A.’s alcohol addiction, the courts noted that R.A. had started treatment and that in any event the Hague proceedings did not envisage ordering the child’s return to his father. The domestic courts noted that in case of any threats, the first applicant has a right to ask the Irish authorities to intervene. Having noted the child’s statements given to the custodial authorities ( bāriņtiesa ) according to which the child wished to stay with his mother and the recommendation of child’s psychologist not to allow the child’s separation from his mother, the domestic courts reiterated that the Hague proceedings were aimed at returning the child to his habitual place of residence, and that the above issues falls to be examined within the custody proceedings. B.     Custody proceedings in Ireland 8.     In January 2016 R.A. initiated custody proceedings in the District Court of Drogheda. Upon the applicant’s request the hearing of 1   March 2016 was postponed. 9.     On 1   March 2016 a judge of the District Court of Drogheda dismissed the applicant’s request to hold a videoconference and the judge ordered the applicant to grant the child’s attendance at the court on 14   April 2016. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article   8 of the Convention of an infringement of her right to respect for her family life on account of the decision by the Latvian courts to order the return of her son to Ireland. In particular, she argued that the child’s psychologist had recommended avoiding separation of the mother and the child; however the applicant has no practical means of following the child in Ireland where the applicant has no work or a place to live. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? The parties are invited in particular to take note of the recommendation of the child’s psychologist of 16   February 2016 according to which the applicant and the child should not be separated, and of the applicant’s allegations that she has no means allowing her to follow the child in Ireland; as well as of the Court’s case-law which provides that “the courts must satisfy themselves that adequate safeguards are convincingly provided in that country, and, in the event of a known risk, that tangible protection measures are put in place” (see X   v.   Latvia [GC], no.   27853/09, §   108, ECHR 2013).