CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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 22 February 2021 Published on 8 March 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12083/20 Fabio VIOTTO against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 25 February 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns abduction by one parent of her child from the habitual residence 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 failure of the Moldovan authorities to take all necessary action, in a timely manner, in order to return the child to his habitual residence and to ensure contact with the child in the meantime. 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 delays in dealing with the case and the failure of the various authorities to take all reasonable steps to find and return the child ( Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no. 31679/96, §§ 89-113, ECHR 2000 ‑ I)?