Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
Raban v. Romania (Application No 25437/08)
INCADAT reference
HC/E/RO 1330
Court
European Court of Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
Josep Casadevall (President); Elisabet Fura, Corneliu Bîrsan, Boštjan M. Zupan?i?, Egbert Myjer, Ineta Ziemele, Luis López Guerra (Judges)
States involved
ISRAEL
ROMANIA
Decision
26 October 2010
Final
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters
Application dismissed
Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, 27 July 2006 Deak v. Romania and the United Kingdom, no. 19055/05, 3 June 2008 Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII, Sylvester v. Austria (dec.), nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98 (joined), 26 September 2002 Bianchi v. Switzerland, no. 7548/04, §§ 78, 80, 22 June 2006 Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 41615/07, 6 July 2010 Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 90, ECHR 2001 II Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, ECHR 2003 VII Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, ECHR 2000 I Carlson v. Switzerland, no. 49492/06, 6 November 2008 Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, ECHR 2007 XIII Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, ECHR 2000 VIII, Maršálek v. the Czech Republic, no. 8153/04, 4 April 2006 Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299 A, Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, ECHR 2002 I; Tiemann v. France and Germany (dec.), nos. 47457/99 and 47458/99, ECHR 2000 IV Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14600/05, ECHR 2005 XIII Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, 5 April 2005.
INCADAT comment
Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) Judgments
SUMMARY
Summary available in
EN
|
FR
Facts
On 3 November 2006 the maternal grandmother advised the father that the children would be remaining in Romania. Ten days later the father filed a return request with the Israeli Central Authority. On 14 February 2007 the Romanian Central Authority commenced return proceedings in the Bucharest District Court.
On 11 October the Bucharest District Court ruled that the retention of the children was wrongful and refused to uphold any of the exceptions; notably that the "state of insecurity" in Israel would expose the children to a grave risk of harm. On this final point the Court noted that the prevailing security situation had not been an obstacle to the family having lived in Israel for five years.
On 7 January 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in a 2:1 majority ruling, upheld the mother's appeal. In this the majority found that the children had left with the father's consent due to the latter's worsening financial situation and the children would face a grave risk of harm if returned.
The Court found, inter alia, that there was no evidence the father had supported the children since they had gone to Romania; he had only visited once, in October 2007; the family home had been sold and the father was living with the paternal grandmother. Moreover, the children were found to have integrated into the Romanian community successfully and there was external evidence of potential dangers in Israel.
The father lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 May 2008, that his and his children's rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been breached. On 19 December 2008 the Bucharest District Court granted the mother a divorce and awarded her custody of the children. The father did not file an appeal against these rulings.
Ruling
Grounds
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The European Court of Human Rights restated its long affirmed position that the positive obligations imposed by Article 8 of the ECHR had to be interpreted in the light of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.
In assessing whether national courts had secured the guarantees of the ECHR in applying and interpreting the provisions of the 1980 Convention, the decisive issue was whether a fair balance, albeit within the margin of appreciation afforded to States, had been struck between the interests of the child and those of the parents. In this the child's best interests were the primary consideration, namely the maintenance of his family ties, unless such ties were undesirable, and, ensuring his development in a sound environment.
The assessment of an abducted child's best interests was primarily one for domestic authorities, and one over which they enjoyed a margin of appreciation, although this was subject to European supervision. It was equally for the Court to ensure that the decision making process was fair.
To that end the Court had to ascertain whether the domestic courts had conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors, in particular of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature, and had made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with a constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for the abducted child in the context of an application for his return to his country of origin.
Considering the facts of the case, the Court reiterated that "the concept of the child's best interests should be paramount in the procedures put in place by the Hague Convention. Consideration of what serves best the interests of the child is therefore of crucial importance in every case of this kind". The Court noted that the Romanian Appellate Court had taken into consideration the arguments of the parties with regard to the consent given by the father to the retention and had provided reasoning for the interpretation adopted in respect of Articles 3 and 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Convention.
The Court noted that it could not question the assessment of domestic authorities unless there was clear evidence of arbitrariness. There was no such evidence of arbitrariness in the present case; on the contrary, the Appellate Court had examined the case and given a judgment paying particular consideration to the principle of the paramount interests of the children- who had been very young when they left Israel, and who now appeared to be very well integrated into their new environment. Consequently there was no reason to depart from the findings of the domestic Court of Appeal.
Procedural Matters
The European Court of Human Rights held that the primary legal issue to be considered concerned the applicants' right to a family life and it held that it was not necessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.
INCADAT comment
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) Judgments
Faits
Le 3 novembre 2006, la grand-mère maternelle a prévenu le père que les enfants resteraient en Roumanie. Dix jours plus tard, le père a introduit une demande de retour auprès de l'Autorité centrale israélienne. Le 14 février 2007, l'Autorité centrale roumaine a engagé une procédure de retour devant la Cour de district de Bucarest.
Le 11 octobre, la Cour de district de Bucarest a jugé que le non-retour de l'enfant était illicite et a refusé de retenir l'une des exceptions invoquées, rejetant notamment l'argument selon duquel il existait un risque grave que l'« état d'insécurité » en Israël expose les enfants à un danger. À cet égard, la Cour a fait remarquer que les conditions de sécurité n'avaient pas empêché la famille de vivre en Israël pendant cinq ans.
Le 7 janvier 2008, la Cour d'appel de Bucarest, à la majorité de deux voix contre une, a accueilli le recours formé par la mère, estimant que les enfants avaient été emmenés sans le consentement du père du fait de la détérioration de sa situation financière et qu'il existait un risque grave que le retour ne les expose à un danger.
La Cour a entre autres noté que le père ne semblait pas avoir versé une pension pour les enfants depuis leur départ en Roumanie, qu'il ne leur avait rendu visite qu'une fois, en octobre 2007, que le domicile familial avait été vendu et que le père habitait désormais avec la grand-mère paternelle. En outre, il a été jugé que les enfants s'étaient bien intégrés au sein de la communauté roumaine et que des signes extérieurs attestaient de l'existence de risques potentiels en Israël.
Le 28 mai 2008, le père a présenté une requête devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, alléguant qu'il y avait eu violation de ses droits et ceux de ses enfants en vertu des articles 6 et 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH). Le 19 décembre 2008, la Cour de district de Bucarest a prononcé le divorce et a accordé la garde des enfants à la mère. Le père n'a pas interjeté appel de cette décision.
Dispositif
Motifs
Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH)
-
Questions procédurales
La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a estimé que la question juridique à considérer en priorité était celle du droit des demandeurs au respect de leur vie familiale et qu'il n'était pas nécessaire de statuer sur une éventuelle violation de l'article 6(1) de la CEDH.