CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10395/19 Gheorghe MICHNEA against Romania lodged on 1 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, insofar as a court decision dismissed his request for the return of his infant child to Italy, where the applicant resides and where the family lived when the child was born in March 2017. In a final decision no. 299 (adopted on 16 June 2018 and notified to the parties on 13 August 2018), the Bucharest Court of Appeal refused the return on the grounds that despite being born in Italy, the child could not be considered to have her habitual residence in that country, due to the fact that the mother only lived there for a short period of time (from 4   February   2017 to 9 August 2017). QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in the light of the proceeding for the return of his child giving rise to the final decision no.   299 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (adopted on 16 June 2018 and notified to the parties on 13 August 2018)? In particular, is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the notion of “habitual residence” in the present case consistent with the requirements of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (“the Brussels II   bis   Regulation”)?