CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 20 December 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 8361/21 Simona Mihaela DOBRE against Romania lodged on 1 February 2021 communicated on 5 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal by the domestic courts to allow the applicant to change her and her child’s residence from Romania to Canada, in the absence of the father’s consent (decision of 18 February 2019 of the Bucharest District Court and final decision of 7 August 2020 of the Bucharest County Court). The divorce and custody court granted shared parental authority and set the child’s residence with his mother with whom he lived from his birth in 2008 (final decision of 22 November 2017 of the Bucharest County Court). The applicant argues that the domestic courts denied the child’s right to continue living with his mother, in the place of his choosing, and in doing so they failed to correctly assess his best interest, as Canada would offer an environment which is better adapted to his needs. Moreover the courts favoured the father who did not make the effort to maintain contact with the child and did not contribute to his upbringing and education. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, when denying the applicant the request to move with the child from Romania to Canada, did the domestic courts identify the child’s best interest and, in that light, appropriately take into account all interests at stake?