CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 17 March 2017     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37043/16 Anamaria NEDELCU and Anthony Kyle NEDELCU against Romania lodged on 21 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the outcome of the proceedings brought against the first applicant (Ms Anamaria Nedelcu) by the father of her child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. On 10 February 2015 the County Court allowed the father’s request and ordered the first applicant to return the child (the second applicant, Mr Anthony Kyle Nedelcu) to his habitual residence in Canada, at his father’s home. The court considered that the allegations concerning the violent and abusive behaviour of the father pertained to the merits of the custody issues, thus being irrelevant for the purpose of the proceedings engaged under the Hague Convention. It further held that the child’s position in the matter (aged six at that time) could not be taken into account. The applicants submitted their complaints relying on Articles 3, 6, 8 and   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, Neulinger and   Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, §§ 131-140, ECHR 2010; X   v.   Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, ECHR 2013; and Blaga v. Romania , no.   54443/10, §§ 64-72, 1 July 2014)? In particular:   -     have the Romanian courts properly assessed the risk incurred by the second applicant if returned to Canada, and the safeguards in place, in particular concerning the alleged risk of physical, psychological and sexual abuse from his father?   -     have the Romanian courts properly assessed the risk incurred by the first applicant if she was to return to Canada with her son, in so far as she faced imprisonment for a term of up to ten years for the offence of abduction in contravention of a custody order?   -     have the Romanian courts acted expeditiously, as required by Article   8 of the Convention, in so far as the decision of 10 February 2015 became available to the parties only on 23 December 2015?