CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 janvier 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 171 February 2014 Șandru v. Romania (dec.) - 1902/11 Decision 14.1.2014 [Section III] Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom of movement Inability of minor to leave State without documentation necessary to prove father’s consent: inadmissible Facts – At the material time the applicant was 13   years old and lived with his mother. On 6   March 2009, after obtaining his mother’s consent, he paid to go on a trip being organised by his school. On an application by the mother on 27   March 2009, the court of first instance ordered the father to give his consent to the school trip. The order was enforceable, but subject to appeal within five days. On 10   April 2009, when checking the applicant’s identity papers at the customs post, the police officers contacted the mother as they considered that the order should have been marked “final and irrevocable”. The mother told them that the order was enforceable but that she could not certify that it was irrevocable because it had only become irrevocable on 8   April 2009 and, according to the practice of the domestic courts, the court clerk did not provide such certification the same day but only two days later in order to allow the necessary time for a possible appeal lodged by post within the statutory time-limit. The police officers therefore prohibited the applicant from leaving Romanian territory. Law – Article 2 of Protocol No.   4: The applicant had suffered interference with his freedom of movement. That interference had been prescribed by law. The measure in question had been necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, namely, those of the applicant’s father, and for the maintenance of ordre public , as it had concerned the supervision of minors travelling abroad. With regard to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court gave special consideration to the duration of the measure in question. The applicant had been the subject of a one-off, temporary measure on account of the absence of documents required by law. Moreover, he could have obtained the documents required by the customs authorities by applying for his father’s consent sufficiently far in advance. The applicant had paid for the school trip on 6   March 2009, but had waited three weeks before making the urgent application. Accordingly, the Court held that he had not had to bear an excessive burden. Conclusion : inadmissible (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes