CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 2023

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 4 December 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 103/22 Lampros MAKRIS against Greece lodged on 15 December 2021 communicated on 16 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings under the   Hague   Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague   Convention”) instituted on 30 September 2019 by the applicant, a Greek national, to seek the return of his daughter from Greece to Texas, USA. The applicant lived with his wife and their minor daughter (born on 18   January 2018) in Texas since 2017. When they came to Greece for vacations in the summer of 2019, his wife stayed with their daughter in Greece, refusing to get to the flight back of 11   August 2019 and expressing her will to stay permanently in Greece. On 30 September 2019 the applicant lodged proceedings under the Hague Convention in Athens. By its decision no.   5705/2019 of 1 November 2019, the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance, after a private conversation between the judge and the child, acknowledged that the child had been illegally retained by her mother in Greece. Nevertheless, it rejected the applicant’s request for return of his daughter applying Article 13 b) of the Hague Convention on the grounds that the kid had well adapted in Greece, where all her relatives and friends stayed, had a close relationship with her mother who had refused to go back and from whom she did not want to be away. It was also noted that even though the child loved her father, she preferred to stay in Greece. The same reasoning was repeated by the appellate court in its decision no.   3081/2020 of 6 May 2020 which further added that an eventual return of the child would cause trauma to her, as she would have to be taken care of by third parties given her father’s long working hours and her mother’s refusal to return to Texas. The judgment was validated by decision no.   672/2021 of the Court of Cassation, delivered on 28 May 2021. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to family life has not been respected by the balancing exercise of the domestic courts which gave undue weight to the child’s views and erroneously interpreted Article 13 b) of the Hague Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the dismissal of the applicant’s Hague Convention application compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, in light of the interpretation of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention as applied by the domestic courts in the case at hand (see   X v.   Latvia   [GC], no.   27853/09 , §§ 101, 106-07, ECHR   2013 and   Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland   [GC], no.   41615/07 , §§   131 ‑ 40, ECHR   2010)? Have the proceedings for the return of the child, which started on 30   September 2019 and ended on 28 May 2021, lasted too long, contrary to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention and of the recommendations set out in Article 11 of the Hague Convention (see, notably, Monory v.   Romania and Hungary , no. 71099/01 , § 82, 5 April 2005,   Karrer v.   Romania , no.   16965/10 , § 54, 21   February 2012 and   Blaga v.   Romania , no.   54443/10 , §   83, 1   July 2014)?