CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 February 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30305/16 Ion NIȚĂ against Romania lodged on 23 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life insofar as he could not obtain enforcement of a court order establishing in his favour visiting rights with his daughter. The applicant’s former wife had been granted custody of the child when the parties had divorced. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the non-enforcement of the court order establishing visiting rights in his favour. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as the enforcement of the decision adopted on 15 June 2012 by the Vâlcea County Court is concerned? In particular, have the Romanian authorities (notably courts, bailiff’s office, and Vâlcea Child Protection Agency) complied with their obligation to assist the applicant in his efforts to visit with his child (see Lafargue v. Romania , no. 37284/02, 13 July 2006; Amanalachioai v.   Romania , no. 4023/04, §§ 100-101, 26 May 2009; and Costreie v.   Romania , no. 31703/05, 13 October 2009)?