CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 561/24 Ion VLAD against Romania lodged on 20 December 2023 communicated on 21 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for changing a child’s residence from the mother to the father (the applicant), dismissed by the domestic courts (decision of 22 November 2022 of the Găeşti District Court and final decision of 20 April 2023 of the Dâmboviţa County Court) despite unequivocal acknowledgement by those courts that the mother acted against the child’s interests by manipulating and disinforming her in order to alienate her from her father, to the point where the child refused any contact with him. Under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the outcome of the proceedings initiated on 11 April 2018 and which gave rise to the final decision of 20 April 2023. He further complains about the excessive length of those proceedings and about the domestic courts’ failure to take measures to prevent the mother from protracting the proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, bearing in mind that the Găeşti District Court and the Dâmboviţa County Court, in their decisions of, respectively, 22 November 2022 and 20 April 2023, refused to set his daughter’s residence with him (see, notably, Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino , no. 32250/08, §§ 170-78 and 183-84, 27 September 2011)? In particular: (a)     Did the courts correctly identify the child’s best interests to maintain contact with both parents? (b)     Did the courts assess each parent’s ability to comply with the custody and contact arrangements, in compliance with the child’s best interests? (c)     Were the courts able to identify measures that would allow protection of the child’s best interests? (d)     Was the system set in place by domestic law, and the manner in which it was applied, capable of offering sustainable solutions that would take into account the child’s needs and best interests? and (e)     Did the courts comply with the requirement of swiftness enshrined in proceedings concerning children’s rights (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis , E.S. v. Romania and Bulgaria , no. 60281/11, §   64, 19 July 2016; P.F. v.   Poland , no. 2210/12, § 56, 16 September 2014; and Eberhard and M. v.   Slovenia , nos. 8673/05 and 9733/05, § 127, 1 December 2009)?