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

She further referred to Ignaccolo-Zenide v.

Effective respect for family life requires that future relations between a parent and child be determined solely in the light of all the relevant considerations, and not by the mere passage of time (see Ignaccolo-Zenide

adequate and efficient steps to enforce the return order had helped the “abductor” parent to benefit from his illegal actions, which had amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Ignaccolo-Zenide

Finland , no. 32842/96, 27 June 2000; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no. 31679/96, 25 January 2000; the Hokkanen v.

to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo

Poland , no. 8677/03, §   82, 8   January 2008; Hokkanen , cited above, § 53; and Ignacc olo-Zenide v.   Romania , no. 31679/96, § 96, ECHR 2000 ‑ I).