CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.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 } Published on 26 January 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 16810/24 Benjamin John NORRIS against Romania lodged on 6 June 2024 communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for the return of a child (A) to the United Kingdom from Romania, lodged before the Romanian courts under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The applicant, a British national, is the father of A. A was born in 2014 in the United Kingdom, from the applicant’s marriage to Y, a Romanian national. A is not an applicant before the Court. Following the applicant’s and Y’s divorce, the Family Court at Bristol ordered that A should reside with the applicant, while Y was granted unsupervised contact rights and permission to take A abroad for holidays. Neither parent was otherwise allowed to remove the child from the jurisdiction without the other party’s consent or the court’s authorisation. On 14 December 2022 Y and A, with the applicant’s consent, travelled to Romania for the Christmas holidays. On 27 December 2022 Y informed the applicant that she refused to return A to the United Kingdom. The applicant lodged return proceedings before the Bucharest District Court (“the District Court”) under the Hague Convention. On 13 April 2023 (decision drafted on 27 April 2023), the District Court dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that, although A’s retention in Romania had been wrongful, the exception to return provided for under Article   13 (b) of the Hague Convention had been made out. On 20 June 2023 the Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the first-instance decision and retained the case for re-examination. On 8 August 2023 while the return proceedings were pending before the Court of Appeal, the applicant informed that court that Y was refusing to allow him to see A and requested that it order her to permit contact. Y’s lawyer submitted that A had been ill and thus unable to see the applicant. The applicant maintained that he had attempted to reach A by telephone but had been unable to do so. The Court of Appeal did not order any measures. On 14 November 2023, following a request by the applicant, the Court of Appeal noted that, pursuant to Article 12 § 1 of Law no. 369/2004 on the application of the Hague Convention, it had jurisdiction to order measures relating to the protection of the child and contact between the child and the person seeking the child’s return while the return proceedings were pending. It accordingly ordered Y to allow the applicant daily contact with A between 24 and 27 November 2023. On 27 February 2024 (decision drafted on 15 March 2024), the Court of Appeal dismissed the return proceedings, finding that the exception to return provided for under Article 13 of the Hague Convention had been established. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the outcome of the return proceedings and alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to secure his contact with his daughter while those proceedings were pending before the domestic courts. Under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the excessive length of the return proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the decisions adopted by the Romanian courts in the impugned proceedings (see, notably, X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, ECHR 2013)?   2.     Have the Romanian courts correctly evaluated the best interests of the child, in the light of the exceptions provided for by Article 13 of the Hague Convention, when determining the request for her return (see, notably, X   v.   Latvia , cited above, §§ 95-97, 101, 106-07)?   3.     Was the applicant’s right of access to the child ensured during the impugned proceedings in compliance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, G.N. v. Poland , no. 2171/14, § 75, 19 July 2016 and K.J. v. Poland , no. 30813/14, §§ 77-78, 1 March 2016)?   4.     Were the impugned proceedings conducted expeditiously, as required by Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, Adžić v. Croatia , no.   22643/14, §§ 94 ‑ 95, 12 March 2015; Rinau v. Lithuania , no. 10926/09, § 194, 14   January 2020; Iosub Caras v. Romania , no. 7198/04, §§ 38-40, 27   July 2006 and Monory v. Romania and Hungary , no. 71099/01, § 82, 5   April 2005)?