CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 19 February 2021 Published on 8 March 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 52981/20 Nicolae BÎRSAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 24 November 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns abduction by one parent of her child from the habitual residence in Romania and the refusal of the Moldovan courts to order his return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International   Child Abduction. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention because of the refusal of the Moldovan courts to order the return of the child to his habitual residence and to the applicant grant visiting rights. The application raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention owing notably to the Moldovan courts’ decisions concerning the applicant’s request to have his child returned to his habitual residence, as well as in the light of the alleged failure to grant visiting rights ( Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no.   31679/96, §§ 89-113, ECHR 2000 ‑ I)?