reiterates that in the area of international child abduction the obligations imposed by Article 8 on the Contracting States must be interpreted in the light of the requirements of the Hague Convention (see Ignaccolo

  56838/00, ECHR 2003 ‑ X ; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no. 31679/96, §§   94-96, ECHR 2000 ‑ I ; and Tiemann v. France and Germany (dec.), nos.

Sweden (no. 2) , judgment of 27   November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp. 35-36, § 90; Ignaccolo-Zenide   v.   Romania , no.

Finland (judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 229) or Ignaccolo-Zenide v.

Convention to have measures taken as would harm the child’s health and development (see Elsholz, cited above, § 50; and T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 71, ECHR 2001-V; see also Ignaccolo-Zenide

balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, amongst others, Ignaccolo-Zenide

whether the decision ‑ making process leading to an interference was fair and afforded those concerned to present their case fully, and that the best interests of the child were defended (see Ignaccolo

On that basis, the Government distinguished the present case from the case of Ignaccolo-Zenide v.

with the parent might appear to threaten those interests or interfere with those rights, it is for the national authorities to strike a fair balance between them (see Hokkanen , cited above, § 58; Ignaccolo-Zenide

Article 8 to have such measures taken as would harm the child’s health and development (see Elsholz , cited above, § 50; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 71, ECHR 2001-V; Ignaccolo-Zenide

  39388/05, § 68, 6   December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no. 31679/96, §   102, ECHR   2000 ‑ I; Iosub Caras v.

Article 8 includes a parental right to have steps taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such a reunion (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide

everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to “rebuild” the family; the State’s obligation is not one of result, but one of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide

Finland , 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A, no. 299 ‑ A; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no. 31679/96, § 96, ECHR 2000 ‑ I; Nuutinen v.

Article 8 to have such measures taken as would harm the child's health and development (see Elsholz , cited above, § 50; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 71, ECHR 2001-V; Ignaccolo-Zenide

everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to “rebuild” the family; the State’s obligation is not one of result, but one of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide

  23452/94, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII), and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania (no.   31679/96, ECHR 2000-I, 25   January 2000).

person’s relationship with his or her child, there is a duty to exercise exceptional diligence, in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter (see Ignaccolo

to have such measures taken as would harm the child’s health and development (see Elsholz, cited above, § 50; and T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 71, ECHR 2001-V; see also Ignaccolo-Zenide