CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 février 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149 February 2012 Karrer v. Romania - 16965/10 Judgment 21.2.2012 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Insufficiently thorough analysis of best interests of child and unfairness of decision-making process in Hague Convention proceedings: violation   Facts – In 2004 the first applicant, an Austrian national, married a Romanian national, K.T. In 2006 the couple had a daughter, the second applicant, who was in their joint custody. In January 2008 K.T. filed for an injunction against the first applicant seeking his removal from the family home on the grounds of his violent behaviour. The injunction was granted for a period of three months and criminal proceedings were instituted against him. The couple separated and K.T. filed for divorce. She also sought temporary sole custody of the second applicant. In July 2008 an Austrian court acquitted the first applicant of inflicting bodily harm. In September 2008, while the divorce and the custody proceedings were still pending before the Austrian courts, K.T. left for Romania together with the second applicant. The first applicant then submitted a request for the return of the child to Austria under Article   3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction . The Romanian authorities established that the second applicant was living with K.T. in her grandparents’ home and the social services drew up a report mainly describing her living conditions. The first-instance court found in favour of the second applicant’s return to Austria, but the court of appeal reversed that decision finding that a return might expose the second applicant to physical and psychological harm. Meanwhile, in November 2008 the Austrian courts had granted the first applicant sole custody of the child pending the conclusion of the divorce proceedings. Law – Article 8: The Court firstly examined the manner in which the Romanian authorities had determined the best interests of the child. It was observed in this connection that they had based their assessment on an expired injunction issued in Austria and had decided to set aside the Austrian courts’ decision awarding temporary custody to the first applicant only because that decision was delivered after K.T. had left for Romania. Furthermore, the relevant social services’ report on which the Romanian courts had based their decision had not assessed the implications of the second applicant’s return to Austria. Moreover, the witness testimonies relied on had consisted only of statements of K.T. and her parents and no attempt had been made to contact the first applicant in order to hear his views. In such circumstances, the analysis conducted by the domestic authorities to determine the child’s best interests had not been sufficiently thorough. As to the fairness of the decision-making process, the first applicant had never been afforded the opportunity to present his case before the Romanian courts either directly or through written submissions. Finally, the Hague Convention proceedings had lasted a total of eleven months before two levels of jurisdiction, notwithstanding that such proceedings should have been terminated within six weeks. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. (See also X v. Latvia , no.   27853/09, 13   December 2011, Information Note no.   147 ; and Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy , no.   14737/09, 12   July 2011, Information Note no.   143 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes