CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   755 13.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Costreie v. Romania (application no. 31703/05 )   FATHER PREVENTED FROM EXERCISING ACCESS RIGHTS   Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     The applicant submitted that a finding of a violation of the Convention would constitute sufficient redress for his non-pecuniary damage; the Court accepted that position. As the applicant had not requested any sum under Article 41 (just satisfaction) for pecuniary damage, the Court made no award under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Valentin Sorin Costreie, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bucharest. He has two daughters, Maruna Maria (born in 1995) and Teodora Andreea (born in 1999), from his marriage to C.D.E. On 13 June 2003 his wife left the family home and took the two girls with her without his consent. She lodged an urgent application for interim custody of the girls, but it was granted to Mr Costreie on 5 September 2003. In October 2003 C.D.E. obtained a stay of execution of the decision and custody was then awarded to her until the divorce.   The applicant applied to the court seeking a temporary right of access in respect of his daughters. On 2 September 2003, in urgent proceedings, he was granted an authorisation to see them on fixed days, but C.D.E. did not comply with that decision. On 27 January 2004 he lodged an urgent application for a temporary right of access, arguing that his wife was constantly preventing him from seeing his daughters. In an urgent order of 9 March 2004, amended by a final judgment of 14 February 2005, the Bucharest District Court granted the applicant a right of access that would remain valid until the final divorce decree and final award of custody. Those decisions were never implemented, despite numerous attempts by Mr Costreie, assisted by a bailiff (who simply drew up official records of failure), even though the latter was accompanied on several occasions by police officers and inspectors from the social assistance and child protection department.   The divorce was granted on 21 April 2004 and became final on 10 March 2005. Custody was awarded to the mother. The judgment contained no provision concerning Mr Costreie’s rights of access, but they were regarded as remaining unchanged by the public authorities, which continued to assist the applicant in his attempts to exercise them.   Mr Costreie took other steps for that purpose. On 2 June 2004 he filed a criminal complaint against C.D.E. and she was ordered at first instance to pay a fine, but the Bucharest County Court ultimately held on 23 January 2008 that the imposition of a criminal sanction on her was not in the interest of her daughters. Similarly, from 2003 onwards the applicant sought assistance from the child protection authorities (who mainly drafted reports on the situation) with no concrete result. According to the most recent report of the child protection department, the parents had been working together since the summer of 2007 to try and improve relations between the girls and their father.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been unable to exercise his parental rights in respect of his two daughters. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 August 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Judges ,   and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar ,   Decision of the Court   The Court pointed out that the right to respect for private and family life obliged domestic authorities to take the necessary measures to reunite a parent with his or her child. However, that obligation was not absolute. The decisive point in the present case was whether the Romanian authorities had taken all measures that could reasonably be expected of them to facilitate the enforcement of the decisions granting the applicant a right of access in respect of his daughters.   The Court found that this had not been the case, for a number of reasons. Among others, the Court observed that the authorities had confined themselves to recording the mother’s constant obstructionist behaviour, without imposing on her any sanction or coercive measure for her failure to comply with the decisions granting Mr Costreie a right of access. The Court further noted that the authorities had not taken any preparatory measures to facilitate meetings between the applicant and his daughters. It particularly regretted that the father’s relations with his daughters, which had been quite normal before the mother left the family home with them (indeed, the domestic courts had initially granted interim custody to the father), had deteriorated seriously because of the mother’s systematic refusal to allow contact between the girls and their father.   The Court held unanimously that Mr Costreie’s inability to exercise his rights of access had entailed a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.