CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2024

.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 } Published on 3 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24011/23 Corneliu-Gabriel BADEA against Romania lodged on 31 May 2023 communicated on 17 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for the return of the applicant’s child to the place of their habitual residence, in Switzerland. Since 2018, upon agreement by her parents after their separation, the child lived with the applicant in Switzerland. The mother remained in Romania. On 24 August 2021, the child, who was 15 years old at that time, refused to return to Switzerland, after spending the summer break with her mother in Romania. On 13 October 2021 the applicant lodged an action for the return of the child to Switzerland, which was eventually dismissed, by a final decision of 1 February 2023 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, mainly on the grounds that the child refused to return to her father and that her return would expose her to grave risk, given that she was afraid of him. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings and about their outcome. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in the light of the proceedings for the return of his daughter to Switzerland, where the applicant is living, giving rise to the final decision of 1 February 2023 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (see, notably, X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 92-108, ECHR 2013)?   2.     Have the Romanian courts acted expeditiously, as required by Article   8 of the Convention (see, notably, Blaga v. Romania , 54443/10, §   83, 1   July 2014 ; Karrer v. Romania , no.   16965/10, § 54, 21   February 2012; Iosub Caras v.   Romania , no. 7198/04, §§ 38-40, 27 July 2006; and Monory v. Romania and Hungary , no.   71099/01, § 82, 5 April 2005)?   3.     Have the courts correctly evaluated the best interests of the child in the light of the exceptions provided for by the Hague Convention, in particular the existence of a “grave risk” (Article 13 (b)), when denying the applicant’s request for return (see, notably, X v.   Latvia , cited above, §§ 95-97, 101, 106 ‑ 107; S.N. and M.B.N. v. Switzerland , no.   12937/20, § 112, 23 November 2021; and Voica v. Romania , no. 9256/19, § 69, 7 July 2020)?