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. 9256/19 Alexandra-Livia VOICA against Romania lodged on 4 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, insofar as a court decision ordered her children’s return to France, where they used to live before moving to Romania and where their father still lives. The applicant considers that those proceedings did not take full account of a French court decision setting the children’s residence with her. Moreover, she argues that the Romanian courts should have ruled that the return would expose the children to grave risk, insofar as the father had been violent towards her in the past, and convicted by a French court of first instance for it (exception provided by Article   13 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction). The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in the light of the proceeding for the return of the children giving rise to the final decision no.   378 of 9 August 2018, adopted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal? In particular: (a)     have the Romanian domestic courts (Bucharest County Court and Bucharest Court of Appeal) taken due account of the French court decision regarding custody of the children? (b)     have those Romanian courts correctly interpreted the notion of “grave risk”, under Article 13 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in the light of the father’s conviction for domestic violence (see, mutatis mutandis, D.M.D. v.   Romania , no.   23022/13, §§ 49 ‑ 51, 3 October 2017; Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11, §§ 76-79, 28 May 2013; and Talpis v.   Italy , no.   41237/14, § 123, 2 March 2017)?