CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase }   Published on 12 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34037/20 Lyubov Romanivna GIRNA against Ukraine lodged on 10 July 2020 communicated on 25 March 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Lyubov Romanivna Girna, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Brescia, Italy. She is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Pshevlotskyy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant permanently lives in Italy. In 2005 she cohabited with P., another Ukrainian national living in Italy. On 17 February 2006 their son, D., was born. In 2011 the applicant and P. separated. The child continued to live with the applicant. In July 2015 the applicant allowed P. to take their son for holidays to the seaside in Italy. Instead, P. travelled with the child to Ukraine. Since that time the child has been living in Ukraine. During September 2015 the applicant had telephone conversations with P. who informed her that if the applicant wished to see the child she had to travel to Ukraine. She had communications with her son and, probably, P.’s new fiancé, both using Ukrainian mobile phone numbers. On 18 May 2017 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Ukrainian courts under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) with a view to obtaining the return of the child to Italy. On 20 November 2018 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unfounded. The court considered that there had been no grounds for ordering the return of the child to Italy and noted that the child had repeatedly expressed his wish to stay in Ukraine. The applicant appealed. On 27 February 2019 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal found that the child had been removed from Italy to Ukraine unlawfully, however since that time the child had been living in Ukraine for more than three years and had settled in the new environment. The appellate court, relying on Article 12 §   2 of the Hague Convention, concluded that there had been no grounds for ordering the return of the child to Italy. On 4 December 2019 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The applicant received the final decision on 11 January 2020. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention that the Ukrainian courts have unreasonably delayed the treatment of her claim for her child’s return to Italy. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of her allegation that the respondent State has failed to deal promptly with her claim for the return of her son to Italy? Did the domestic courts comply with the requirement of speediness inherent in the proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?