CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   416 26.05.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT AMANALACHIOAI v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Amanalachioai v. Romania (application no. 4023/04). The Court held by 6 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s inability to obtain the return of his daughter, then six years old, who had continued to live with her maternal grandparents after spending her holidays with them.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Valentin Amanalachioai, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Botoşani (Romania). In 1999 his wife died from leukaemia. On 27 January 2001, their daughter D., who was born in 1994, left with her father’s consent to spend her holidays with her maternal grandparents, who then informed the applicant on 4 February 2001 that they did not intend to return D. to him.   On 7 February 2001 he lodged an urgent application with the District Court seeking the immediate return of his daughter, and an order was made in his favour. A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to enforce the order. Mr Amanalachioai himself attempted to fetch D. but became embroiled in a quarrel with the grandparents as a result of which D. was injured and required treatment for more than 15 days.   In the context of proceedings for the child’s return, the County Court found on 8 June 2001 that Mr Amanalachioai could not offer his daughter the same material and psychological conditions as D’s grandparents, to whom the girl was very attached.   An appeal by Mr Amanalachioai against the judgment of 8 June 2001 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 October 2001 on the grounds that D. had settled with her grandparents and had become integrated into the social life of the village and that she had refused to return to live with her father. The Court of Appeal considered that “for the time being” it was in the child’s interest to continue to live with her grandparents.   In October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an appeal by the applicant to have the decision of 23 October 2001 set aside. It took the view that Mr Amanalachioai had asked the grandparents to look after his daughter without stipulating a period of time, and that he had behaved aggressively towards the grandparents and child in his attempt to take her back. The Supreme Court of Justice also relied on a report by the County department for the protection of children’s rights, in which it was stated that the applicant’s situation had changed as he had remarried, his new wife being a young woman with a child of her own. The court thus found that D. would be brought up in “optimum conditions” if she remained with her grandparents.   The grandparents’ action to obtain custody of the child was unsuccessful and Mr Amanalachioai was not deprived of his parental rights.   In May 2002 he lodged a new urgent application to secure D.’s return but it was declared inadmissible. He was moreover ordered to pay maintenance contributions for his daughter, in a final judgment of 21 November 2007.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 8, Mr   Amanalachioai alleged that the Romanian authorities had not taken appropriate measures to secure the unity of his family through the immediate return of his daughter D. and to guarantee the exercise of his parental rights.   Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that, while domestic authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of entrusting a child to a person other than the child’s parents, family ties could only be severed in “very exceptional” circumstances and everything had to be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to “rebuild” the family.   The fact that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his or her upbringing would not on its own justify removal from the care of the child’s biological parents. The Court observed that Mr   Amanalachioai was able to offer the child certain material conditions and that his educational and emotional abilities were satisfactory.   The domestic courts had found decisive the argument that D. was very attached to her grandparents and had settled well with them. However, those factors did not correspond to “very exceptional” circumstances capable of justifying the severance of family ties.   Decisions governing family relations could not be taken solely on the basis of the passage of time or to consolidate de facto situations. The Court took the view that the domestic courts, with their rather inactive attitude, had contributed to sustaining a situation created by the authorities’ lack of diligence – a crucial factor in the context of an application for immediate return – in enforcing the urgent-proceedings order.   The Court noted that, in the context of the courts’ temporary refusal to grant the return of D. to her father, it had been necessary to take measures to ensure that Mr   Amanalachioai could exercise his parental rights and that the family relationship could be developed, but this had not been the case. The authorities should have been more concerned about the weakening of this family relationship.   The Court accordingly held that the applicant’s right to respect for his family life had not been effectively protected, in breach of Article 8, and that the passiveness of the authorities had resulted in the severance of the relationship between D. and her father.     Judge Fura-Sandström appended a dissenting opinion to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.