CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 10 January 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54729/21 Simona-Alberta TINU against Romania lodged on 6 November 2021 communicated on 17 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life insofar as she cannot see her two children despite the existence of a court order granting her the physical custody of her children (decision of 3 June 2019 of the Bucharest County Court). The father, who had taken the children, refuses to comply with the court order. A request by the applicant for a protection order to prevent the father from approaching her and the children had been rejected by the courts as ill-founded (decision of 6   August 2021 of the Bucharest County Court). According to the applicant, the father alienated the children and the authorities were not sufficiently active to help her restore her relationship with her children and prevent the psychological harm inflicted by the father on her and the children. Relying on Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains of the authorities’ failure to prevent the psychological harm inflicted by the father on her and the children by rejecting her request for a protection order. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities were not sufficiently active in order to help her restore her relationship with her children and to enforce the court order granting her the children’s physical custody.   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, in so far as the enforcement of the decision adopted on 3 June 2009 by the Bucharest County Court is concerned? In particular, have the Romanian authorities complied with their obligation to assist the applicant in her efforts to be reunited with her children (see, mutatis mutandis , Costreie v. Romania, no.   31703/05, §§   67-72 and 79-92, 13 October 2009)?   2.     Have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligations under Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention (see Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   3564/11, §§ 48-79, 28 May 2013 and Bevacqua and S. v.   Bulgaria , no.   71127/01, §§ 64-84, 12 June 2008)? In particular, have they taken the necessary steps to protect the applicant and her children from the alleged psychological abuse by the children’s father?