CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 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 24 February 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57077/16 Raluca IONESCU and Others against Romania lodged on 23 September 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life insofar as they cannot see each other despite the existence of court orders granting the first applicant the physical custody of her children, the second and the third applicants. The father, who had taken the children away from their home without their mother’s knowledge or consent, refused to comply with the court orders. Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the non-enforcement of the court orders establishing the children’s residence with their mother. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as the enforcement of the decisions adopted on 5 May 2014 by the Bucharest County Court (file no. 46007/299/2013 – urgent request ordonanţă preşedinţială ) and on 24 September 2014 by the Bucharest District Court of the First Precinct (file no. 46006/299/2013) is concerned? In particular, have the Romanian authorities (notably courts, bailiff’s office, and Bucharest Child Protection Agency of the First Precinct) complied with their obligation to assist the applicants in their efforts to be reunited (see, mutatis mutandis , Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no. 31679/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ I)?