CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 3 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37024/20 Dawid CZAJKOWSKI against Romania lodged on 17 August 2020 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the non-enforcement of a return order granted by the domestic courts in the applicant’s favour, in application of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (final decision no. 56 of 30 January 2019 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, file no. 28190/3/2018). In addition, the application also concerns the alleged ineffective assistance for the applicant in his attempts to maintain contact with his children after their wrongful removal to Romania by their mother. The applicant, who requested to re-establish contact with his children via interim proceedings, complains that the courts dismissed his action as inadmissible ratione loci , on the grounds that another court had meanwhile ordered the children’s return to Spain, their place of habitual residence (final decision no. 182 of 30 April 2020 of the Iaşi Court of Appeal, file no.   8002/333/2018). The applicant contends that he was left without any domestic remedy for maintaining contact with his children pending the enforcement of the return order. The applicant relied on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in particular: (a)     with respect to the proceedings for the enforcement of the final decision no. 56 of 30 January 2019 whereby the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the return of the applicants’ children to their habitual residence in Spain? (b)     with respect to the proceedings whereby the domestic courts dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s request for contact rights with his children (final decision no. 182 of 30 April 2020 of the Iaşi Court of Appeal)?   2.     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 alleged protracted and ineffective enforcement proceedings in respect of the final decision no. 56 of 30 January 2019? In particular have the authorities taken sufficient measures in order to prevent delays in the enforcement proceedings and to facilitate the children’s return to their place of habitual residence, in Spain?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, insofar as the domestic courts refused to examine the merits of the applicant’s request for contact with his children pending the enforcement of the return order (final decision no. 182 of 30 April 2020)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 6 and 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention, in respect of both the non-enforcement of the return order (final decision no.   56 of 30 January 2019) and the outcome of the request for contact with his children (final decision no. 182 of 30 April 2020)?