CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s59A346EA { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAB235D59 { width:11.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1D2DFFFE { width:10.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2C9939F2 { width:17.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s30C5935A { width:18.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF15D7952 { width:24.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF8992D0 { width:12.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E97DE01 { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s37AF4F54 { width:11.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s427FE428 { width:10.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF1307286 { width:17.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CE0F6D2 { width:18.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFAF5B83E { width:24.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA97C782 { width:12.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 11 August 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28811/23 M.L.V. against Romania and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 21 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final court decisions granting parental rights (contact or residence) to the applicants over their minor children, following the separation of parents. In addition, application no. 6693/24 also concerns a judicial decision terminating the applicant’s parental authority (“ exercitarea autorității părintești ”), which he had previously exercised jointly with the applicant children’s mother. Relying on several Articles of the Convention (see the appended table below), the applicants complain about the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce their parental rights. The applicant in application no. 6693/24 also complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to secure those rights. Under Article 6 of the Convention, he further complains about the domestic court’s decision to terminate his parental authority and the length of those proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Common questions to all applications: 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce the court decisions (see appended table) granting them certain parental rights in respect of their children (see, among others, E.K. v. Latvia , no. 25942/20, §§ 72-77, 13   April 2023 ; Anagnostakis v. Greece , no. 26504/20, §§ 56-58, 10   October 2023; and Cristescu v. Romania , no. 13589/07, § 60, 10   January 2012)?   The parties are requested to inform the Court of any developments in the enforcement proceedings in relation to all applications. They are further invited to submit a detailed and chronological account of the measures undertaken by the domestic authorities to enforce the decisions in the appended table.   Case-specific questions: Applications nos. 28811/23, 4693/24, 6693/24 and 1968/24   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the court decisions (see appended table) concerning the applicants’ parental rights in respect of their children?   Application no. 6693/24 Questions regarding the first applicant   3.     Did the first applicant have a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the proceedings in which his parental authority was terminated?   4.     Has the termination of the first applicant’s parental authority over his minor children (the second, third and fourth applicants) violated his right to respect for family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, in view of the Iași County Court’s findings that both parents were at fault for the “major conflict” between them and that neither abided by the domestic courts’ repeated invitations to resolve it, did the domestic courts struck a fair balance between the different interests at stake (see, among others, Suur v.   Estonia , no. 41736/18, § 72 and 80-82, 20   October 2020, and Buchs v.   Switzerland , no. 9929/12, §§ 49-51 and 53, 27   May 2014, with further references)?   5.     Was the length of the proceedings in which the first applicant’s parental authority was terminated in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 or in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among others, T.C. v. Italy , no.   54032/18, § 57, 19 May 2022; Ribić v. Croatia , no.   27148/12, §   92, 2   April 2015; and Glesmann v. Germany , no.   25706/03, § 80, 10   January 2008)?   6.     Did the first applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, for his complaints concerning the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to enforce the final court decisions granting him parental rights? Was the regulatory system and its application in practice effective within the meaning of this provision, read together with Article 8 of the Convention, capable of ensuring timely compliance with the first applicant’s rights while considering the children’s needs and best interests?   The parties are requested to provide a comprehensive overview of the domestic legal framework applicable to the enforcement of court decisions relating to minors.   Questions regarding the second, third and fourth applicants   7.     Given the termination of the first applicant’s parental authority, does the first applicant have standing to act on behalf of the second, third and fourth applicants (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis , Strand Lobben and   Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 157, 10 September 2019)?   8.     In the affirmative, did the termination of the first applicant’s parental authority violate the second, third and fourth applicants’ right to respect for their family life under Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, did the domestic court take into account the children applicants’ best interests when granting their mother sole parental authority (see, among others, Strand Lobben and Others , cited above, §   204 and §   206)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Final court decision Convention Articles invoked by the applicants 1. 28811/23 10/07/2023 M.L.V. 1979 Pasărea Romanian   Decision of 15 October 2019 rendered by the Bucharest District Court, which was replaced by several subsequent decisions, with the most recent one being the decision of 9   May 2023, rendered by the Bucharest District Court.   Articles 6, 8 and 13 2. 4693/24 05/02/2024 Corneliu-Cristian BORDEIANU 1975 Constanța Romanian     Decision of 10 August 2022 (final as of 4 October 2023), rendered by the Fetești District Court Articles 6 and 8 3. 6693/24 23/02/2024 B.C.G. 1976 Valea Lupului Romanian A 2006 Miroslava Romanian B 2009 Miroslava Romanian C 2011 Miroslava Romanian   Mihaela Roxana PRISACARIU Decision of 6 July 2016 (final as of 9 October 2017), rendered by the Iași District Court;   Decision of 14 September 2023 rendered by the Iași County Court Articles 6, 8 and 13 4. 8954/24 08/03/2024 Mihai ȘEVEREA 1991 Pogănești Romanian   Decision of 28 November 2019, (final as of 16 June 2020), rendered by the Lugoj District Court Article 8 5. 9446/24 20/03/2024 Aurel DAVID 1977 Pitești Romanian     Decision of 22 November 2023 (final as of 28   November 2023), rendered by the Pitești District Court Article 8 6. 11968/24 12/04/2024 Stylianos TSIFETAKIS 1971 Artyom Greek Florentina JEJERAN Decision of 20 February 2017 (final as of 19 October 2017), rendered by the Bucharest District Court Articles 6 and 8