CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 octobre 2022

.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 } Published on 7 November 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 36257/21 Andreea Camelia CHICOŞ against Romania lodged on 9 July 2021 communicated on 18 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, in so far as a court decision ordered her child’s return to Italy, where they used to live before moving to Romania and where his father is still living (proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) and under 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”)). The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention and submits that those proceedings did not take full account of the child’s best interest and his current situation, and that they lasted too long. QUESTIONS 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 proceedings for the return of her child to Italy giving rise to the final decision no.   41 of 20 January 2021, adopted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal (see X v.   Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 101, 106-07, ECHR 2013 and Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, §§   131-40, ECHR   2010)? In particular: (a)     Has the Court of Appeal assessed the child’s best interest and given sufficient reasons, in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis , Michnea v. Romania , no. 10395/19, § 39, 7   July 2020, with further references), concerning the feasibility of his return to Italy? (b)     Have the proceedings for the return of the child, which started on 8   July 2019 and ended on 20   January 2021, lasted too long, contrary to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention and of the recommendations set out in Article 11 of the Hague Convention (see, notably, Monory v.   Romania and Hungary , no. 71099/01, § 82, 5 April 2005, Karrer v.   Romania , no.   16965/10, § 54, 21   February 2012 and Blaga v. Romania , 54443/10, §   83, 1   July 2014)?   2.     The parties are invited to submit information about the enforcement of the final decision of 20 January 2021 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.