CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sCB1DFF2F { width:115.68%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sA66CC3C2 { width:6.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s10F9643E { width:31.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D94AE9F { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9921D957 { width:16.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s22C91343 { width:25.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s93ADA828 { width:6.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s66ACD26B { width:31.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27D0360D { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6B2930F { width:16.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s75849631 { width:25.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 1 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 231/23 Dawid CZAJKOWSKI and Others against Romania lodged on 27 December 2022 communicated on 10 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant, a Polish national, is the father of Y and Z, the second and third applicants, born from his marriage to X, a Romanian national. The application concerns the duration of divorce and custody proceedings initiated by X before Romanian courts and the negative impact of the prolonged proceedings on the relationship between the applicants. It also concerns the continued alleged non-enforcement of a court decision ordering the children’s return to Spain (decision dated 30 January 2019 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal). On 6 November 2007 the first applicant married X in the United Kingdom. The family later moved to Spain, where they lived with their children, born in 2009 and 2012. On 24 April 2018 X left Spain with the children, aged six and nine, and returned to Romania. On 7 May 2018 X filed a petition for divorce and custody of the children before the Vaslui District Court, Romania. On 27 June 2018 the first applicant initiated separate divorce proceedings before the First Instance Judge in Palma de Mallorca, which were stayed pending the proceedings before the Romanian courts. On 30 January 2019 the Bucharest Court of Appeal granted the return application lodged by the first applicant under the Hague Convention of 25   October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and ordered the return of the second and third applicants to Spain. On 9 December 2021 the Vaslui District Court granted the divorce, awarded joint parental authority to both parents, and determined that the children’s residence would be with their mother in Romania. On 16 June 2022 (decision made available to the parties on 30   August 2022) the Vaslui County Court allowed the first applicant’s appeal and dismissed the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, referencing Article 3 of the Brussels   II bis Regulation and the decision of 30   January   2019 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which had ordered the children’s return to Spain. X’s appeal on points of law against the Vaslui County Court’s decision was dismissed as inadmissible by the Iaşi Court of Appeal on 13   December 2022. During the proceedings, the second and third applicants lived with X and allegedly had no contact with the first applicant. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the first applicant complained, on behalf of himself and the second and the third applicants, that the excessive length of the divorce and custody proceedings harmed their relationship and limited their ability to maintain contact. He further complained, on behalf of the second and third applicants, about the domestic authorities’ continued failure to enforce the Bucharest Court of Appeal’s decision of 30   January 2019, which had ordered the children’s return to Spain. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the length of the divorce and custody proceedings before the Romanian courts – resulting in the decisions of 9   December 2021 (Vaslui District Court), 16 June 2022 (Vaslui County Court), and 13   December 2022 (Iaşi Court of Appeal) – and the consequences of those decisions for the applicants, has there been a violation of their right to respect for their private and/or family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see, among others, , E.S. v. Romania and Bulgaria , no. 60281/11, 19 July 2016; M. and M. v. Croatia , no.   10161/13, ECHR 2015 (extracts); S.I.   v.   Slovenia , no. 45082/05, §§   69 ‑ 72 and 79, 13 October 2011; and Eberhard and M. v.   Slovenia , nos.   8673/05 and 9733/05, §§ 127 and 138-42, 1 December 2009)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the second and third applicants’ right to respect for their family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce the court decision of 30 January 2019 which ordered the children’s return to Spain (see, among others, E.K. v. Latvia , no.   25942/20, §§   72-77, 13 April 2023 ; Anagnostakis v. Greece , no.   26504/20, §§   56-58, 10 October 2023; and Cristescu v.   Romania , no.   13589/07, §   60, 10   January 2012)?   The parties are invited to provide a detailed and chronological account of the measures undertaken by the domestic authorities to enforce the decision of 30 January 2019.     APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Dawid CZAJKOWSKI 1982 Polish Palma de Mallorca 2. Y 2009 Polish, Romanian Vaslui 3. Z 2012 Polish, Romanian Vaslui