THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 47873/13 Vasile DARICIUC against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 7 July 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Luis López Guerra , Ján Šikuta , Johannes Silvis , Valeriu Griţco , Iulia Antoanella Motoc , Branko Lubarda , judges,

and Stephen Phillips , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2013 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Vasile Dariciuc , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Rădăuți . He was represented before the Court by Ms I.M. Peter , a lawyer practising in Bucharest .

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, M s C. Brumar , from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1 . The assistance provided by the Suceava Child Protection Agency to the applicant

4. On 4 January 2011 , after his daughter had committed suicide in December 2010, the applicant notified the Suceava Child Protection Agency (“the Agency”) and complained that the child ’ s paternal grandparents had prevented hi m from contacting his five year- old granddaughter who had not been informed about her mother ’ s death and therefore had been potentially exposed to a severe emotional trauma.

5 . On 13 January 2011 the Agency informed the applicant that they had initiated an investigation in respect of his claims.

6 . On the same date the Agency summoned the paternal grandparents together with the applicant ’ s granddaughter to its office for an interview aimed at clarifying their family ’ s situation.

7 . On 17 January 2011 the Agency asked the Arbore Mayor ’ s Office to produce a social investigation report on the paternal grandparents ’ home.

8 . On 20 January 2011 the Agency summoned the applicant to its office for an interview aimed at clarifying his family ’ s situation.

9 . On the same date the applicant ’ s son-in-law, who had been accompanied by his granddaughter, was interviewed at the Agency ’ s office. According to the conversation report produced on that occasion the applicant ’ s son-in-law had informed the Agency t hat his wife had suffered from depression because he had left to work abroad. He had returned to Romania two days prior to the meeting at the Agency and had not told his daughter about her mother ’ s death. He had acknowledged that his daughter had to be informed about her mother ’ s death and had agreed to inform her with the help of a psychologist. He had also stated that the applicant had used to have a normal relationship with his granddaughter, before he had started pressuring them and picking fights in front of their home. The applicant had not agreed to the marriage between him and his wife and had used to interfere in their marriage.

10 . According to that report the applicant ’ s son-in-law had also been counselled on how to speak to his daughter about her mother and had been advised to shield her from family fights.

11 . On the same date the Agency provided the applicant ’ s granddaughter with psychological counselling in order to prepare her for the news that her mother had died.

12 . On 24 January 2011 the Arbore Mayor ’ s Office produced the social investigation report requested by the Agency on 17 January 2011. The report concluded that the child had a close connection to her father and her paternal grandparents who had cared for her in her father ’ s absence. The father ’ s family had provided the child with normal conditions for her physical, moral and intellectual development and her health had not been endangered.

13 . On 28 January 2011 the applicant was interviewed at the Agency ’ s office. According to the conversation report produced on that occasion the applicant had informed the Agency that his relationship with his son-in-law had been very bad and that his son-in-law had refused to allow him into his home.

14 . According to the same report the Agency ’ s representatives had explained to the applica nt that he had made a mistake in informing his granddaughter about her mother ’ s death directly and without any preliminary coaching. He had been advised that it would be in the best interest of the child to avoid and to solve family conflicts. He had also been informed that it would be advisable for him t o avoid speaking ill of his son ‑ in-law in front of his granddaughter.

15. On 29 September 2011 the Agency informed the applicant following his enquiry that they could have ordered his granddaughter ’ s psychological evaluation only if it had been ordered by a court or had been requested by her father. Moreover, they stated that they had not been competent to punish an individual for failure to comply with a final court judgment. Furthermore, they noted that the applicant ’ s granddaughter had received psychological counselling in respect of her mother ’ s death and in order to help her process the trauma.

16 . On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Agency to inform him whether he had a right to have contact with his granddaughter and whether she could have been counselled in the absence of her father in order to improve his relationship with her.

17 . On 23 July 2013 the Agency info rmed the applicant that they did not have the competence to contradict the final court judgment (see paragraph 29 below) granting him visiting rights. Moreover, they stated that the child could not have undergone psychological counselling without her father ’ s consent on account of her young age and the fact that the Agency ’ s intervention had not been needed for reasons imputable to the applicant ’ s son-in-law.

18 . On 15 and 23 July 2014 the Agency informed the Romanian Government that in 2011 they had supported the applicant in his attempts to rekindle his relationship with his granddaughter. They stated that, following his daughter ’ s death, the applicant had asked the Agency to intervene and to help him preserve his relationship with his granddaughter. Following the applicant ’ s notification, the Agency ’ s representatives had spoken to the applicant ’ s son-in-law. Because his son-in-law had not informed his granddaughter about her mother ’ s death, the applicant ’ s son-in-law and the child had been included in ps ychological counselling program which had led to the applicant ’ s granddaughter finding out the truth about her mother. Neither the Agency ’ s, nor the Arbore Social Protection Service ’ s investigations carried out at the child home had disclosed any danger for the child. In this context, the Suceava Child Protection Agency had mediated a meeting between the applicant, his son-in-law and his granddaughter in order to observe their interaction and to help resolve the conflict between the two parties so that the child would not be traumatised even further. During that meeting, the interaction between the applicant and the applicant ’ s son-in-law had been very tense. The applicant had accused his son-in-law of killing his daughter and had called him a murderer in front of the child. Because the applicant ’ s son-in-law had also been verbally aggressive towards the applicant, both parties had been advised on the negative consequences of their behaviour in respect of the child. Whilst the applicant ’ s son-in-law had changed his behaviour and had mastered his anger, the applicant had failed to do the same even though he had been warn ed that his behaviour might affect his granddaughter ’ s emotional well ‑ being and that it had caused her to reject contact with him. The applicant ’ s granddaughter had refused any physical contact with the applicant both before and after she had been counselled by a psychologist.

19. On the same dates the Suceava Child Protection Agency also informed the Romanian Government that every time the applicant ’ s granddaughter had been brought to the Agency, her psychological evaluation had been carried out in two stages: her interaction with the adults had been observed and afterwards she had received psychological counselling in the absence of her father. Also, given the child ’ s young age, the fact that her father had been her legal representative and that he had not been a danger to the child, there had been no legal basis for the Agency to accept the applicant ’ s request to organise psychological counselling sessions between him and his granddaughter without the father ’ s consent and in his absence. Moreover, after Law no. 272/2004 on protection of the rights of children had been amended on 30 September 2013 a person facing conflicts caused by enforcement of visiting rights could have notified the social protection service from the child ’ s domicile. However, after the aforementioned date the applicant had no longer contacted the Suceava Child Protection Agency, and the latter had not been informed by the Arbore Social Protection Service either that the applicant had faced problems with the enforcement of his visiting rights.

2. Visiting rights proceedings

20 . On 11 January 2011 the applicant opened proceedings against his son-in-law seeking custody of his granddaughter.

21 . On 16 February 2011 the applicant amended his application and asked the domestic courts to grant him visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter if his request for custody rights was dismissed. He asked to see his granddaughter every Sunday at her home and to be granted the right to take her at his house for a month during the summer holiday.

22 . On the same date the Rădăuți District Court allowed in part the applicant ’ s action and granted him visit ing rights every Sunday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. at his granddaughter ’ s and son-in-law ’ s home. It held that the applicant was entitled to have a normal relationship with his granddaughter, a fact that had also been acknowledged by the applicant ’ s son-in-law who had objected only to the visiting sched ule requested by the applicant. A normal relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter was in the child ’ s best interest. Given the child ’ s young age, she needed a stable living environment which could have been affected if she had to travel to the applicant ’ s home for a month during the summer holiday. The applicant could also have asked for an extension of his visiting rights once his relationship with his granddaughter had improved and the child had grown older.

23 . The applicant appealed against the judgment before the Suceava County Court. He asked to be granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter at his house or in a neutral location on account of his poor relationship with his son-in-law. He further argued that a denial of his request by the court would prevent him from actually reconnecting with the child.

24 . On an unspecified date the Suceava County Court ordered the Agency to produce a psychological evaluation report in respect of the applicant ’ s granddaughter.

25 . On 4 October 2011, following the second-instance court ’ s order for a psychological evaluation report, the Agency organised a meeting between the applicant, his granddaughter and his son-in-law in order to assess their interaction. According to the meeting report produced on the same date, at the beginning of the meeting the applicant ’ s daughter had sat only in her father ’ s lap and had not approached the applicant. Afterwards, she had been examined by a psychologist. The applicant ’ s son-in-law had stated that when the applicant had come to see his granddaughter according to the court ’ s schedule he had told the child that her father would murder her just as he had done with her mother. At the same time the applicant had claimed that his son-in-law had been controlling his granddaughter and had turned her against him. The parties had been advised that mediation services could have been provided for them in order to help them resolve their conflict. The applicant ’ s son-in-law had refused, however, to leave the child alone with her grandfather because he could not have trusted his behaviour towards her. The applicant had accused his son-in-law of murdering his daughter in front of the child. At the end of the meeting th e child had refused interact with her grandparent.

26 . On the same date the Agency produced the psychological evaluation report ordered by the second-instance court. It concluded that the applicant, his son-in-law and his granddaughter had needed psychological counselling in order to enable them to resolve their conflict and to rekindle their relationship.

27 . On 13 December 2011 the Suceava County Court allowed the applicant ’ s appeal, quashed in part the judgment of the first-instance court and granted him visiting rights on the second Sunday of each month from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. at his home. It held, amongst other things, that according to the available evidence the applicant and his granddaughter had enjoyed an affectionate relationship both prior and after the child ’ s mother ’ s death. The relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter had changed abruptly and the child had refused to see her grandfather any more, her refusal being fuelled by a feeling of fear towards her grandfather. The conclusions of the psychological evaluation report produced in respect of the child had recommended psychological counselling for both the applicant and the child ’ s father in order to resolve the conflict between them and to allow them to have a balanced relationship with the child. Consequently, the conflict between the applicant and his son-in-law had influenced the applicant ’ s relationship with his granddaughter, given that the child ’ s attitude towards her grandfather had changed. In the absence of any evidence that the applicant would have endangered the child ’ s physi cal or moral development, he had been entitled to have a personal relationship with his granddaught er. Given the excessively tense situation between the applicant and his son-in-law, the age and the interests of the child, the relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter could have be en rekindled only if he had been allowed to take her to his home during the allowed visiting hours.

28 . The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. He asked to be granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter either every Sunday or alterna tively every second Sunday at his house on account of his busy work program me . He further argued that a denial of his request by the court would prevent him from rekindling the relationship with his granddaughter.

29 . By a final judgment of 27 March 2012 the Suceava Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s ap peal on points of law. It held, amongst other things, that it was in the best interest of the child to have contact with her grandfather given that the applicant had not endanger ed his granddaughter ’ s physical and moral development and that prior and after the child ’ s mother ’ s death they had had an affectionate relationship with one another which had been affected by the death of the child ’ s mother and the conflict between the applicant and his son-in-law. In spite of the child ’ s fear towards the applicant, according to the social investigation report the best interest of the child had been to establish a functional relationship with the applicant, reason for which the parties psychological counselling had been recommended. However, the visiting schedule requested by the applicant would have been tiring for the child, given their family situation and the child ’ s young age and would have also limited the applicant ’ s son-in-law ’ s time spent with his child. The visiting program me could have been changed once the factual circumstances had changed and if it had been in the best interest of the c hild. Consequently, it was more appropriate for the applicant to have contact with his granddaughter only one Sunday per month.

3. Criminal proceedings opened by t he applicant against his son ‑ in ‑ law

30 . On 17 July 2012 the applicant brought criminal proceedings against his son-in-law on the basis of Article 307 of the Romanian Criminal Code for repeated ly obstructing him to see his granddaughter. He argued that although on 8 April, 7 and 13 May 2012 he had contacted his son-in-law and had asked him to allow him to have contact with his granddaughter, his son-in-law had refused to allow him to see her.

31 . On 22 January 2013 the Rădăuți Prosecutor ’ s Office dismissed the criminal proceedings opened by the applicant against his son-in-law. It held that even though the applicant had been granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter by a final court judgment, every time he had asked her to go with him to his home she had obstinately refused. Moreover, the child had been heard in the presence of a representative of the Suceava Child Protection Agency and she had refused to go to the applicant ’ s house because she had feared him after he had repeatedly visited her at school and had scared her with his repeated requests to follow him home. Furthermore, the psychological report produced by the Suceava Child Protection Agency showed that the child had feared the applicant and had recommended that the child underwent psychological counselling in order to rekindle her relationship with the applicant. Lastly, the applicant ’ s son-in-law had only observed his c hild ’ s wishes and there was no evidence that he had influenced the child. The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’ s office ’ s decision before the domestic courts.

32 . By a final judgment of 12 April 2013 the Rădăuți District Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant. It held that the applicant was not a parent and therefore the elements required for the offence provided by Article 307 of the Romanian Criminal Code to exist had not been met. Moreover, the police officers had heard the child in the presence of the representative of the Suceava Child Protection Agency and she had refused to go to the applicant ’ s home because she had feared him. The child had also stated that her father had never told her not to go to the applicant ’ s home.

4. Enforcement proceedings

33 . In his initial letters the applicant informed the Court that in his hometown there had been only three bailiffs and all of them had refused to help him enforce the final judgment of 27 March 2012.

34 . On 11 November 2013 the applicant employed a bailiff located in Suceava to enforce the final judgment of 27 March 2012.

35 . On 12 November 2013 the bailiff employed by the applicant motioned the Suceava District Court to approve the enforcement of the final judgment of 27 March 2012.

36 . On 14 November 2013 the Suceava District Court approved the bailiff ’ s request.

37 . On 26 November 2013 the bailiff informed the applicant ’ s son ‑ in ‑ law that enforcement proceedings had been initiated against him following the applicant ’ s request. She invited the applicant ’ s son-in-law to her office on 3 December 2013 in order for him to pay the required enforcement fees and to provide the required information concerning his assets. She also inf ormed him that failure to comply or to provide the required information was punishable by fines.

38 . On the same date the bailiff notified the applicant ’ s son-in-law that he needed to comply with the domestic courts ’ judgment and that the first meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on 8 December 2013. She also notified him that she would proceed with the enforce ment of the judgment as provided, among other things, by Articles 910 and 911 of the R omanian Civil Procedure Code if he refused to comply.

39 . On 3 December 2013 the applicant ’ s son-in-law agreed before the bailiff to obey the final judgment of 27 March 2012.

40 . On 8 December 2013 the bailiff accompanied the applicant to his granddaughter ’ s home in order to enforce the judgment. The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the applicant ’ s son ‑ in ‑ law had agreed to allow the applicant to see his granddaughter and had not obstructed the enforcement proceedings. The applicant ’ s granddaughter had a strong emotional connection with her father and had been hostile towards the applicant. She had obstinately refused to accompany her grandfather anywhere without her father being present because she had feared her grandfather. Consequently, the applicant and his son-in-law had agreed, with the child ’ s consent, to take the child in a public location and to spend the day together accompanied by the bailiff. The applicant had been able to give his granddaughter a gift and had interacted with her calmly and openly. The applicant ’ s son in law had agreed to allow his daughter to visit her grandfather any time she wished and even on other days than the ones that had been mentioned by the court. The applicant ’ s granddaughter had agreed to have future contact with her grandfather but only in her father ’ s presence.

41 . On 7 January 2014 the bailiff notified the applicant ’ s son-in-law for a second time that he needed to comply with the domestic courts ’ judgment and that the second meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on 12 January 2014. She also reiterated that she would proceed with the enforce ment of the judgment as provided, among other things, by Articles 910 and 911 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code if he refused to comply.

42 . On 12 January 2014 the bailiff accompanied the applicant to his granddaughter ’ s home. The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the parties had agreed for the meeting to take place in a public location after they had consulted the applicant ’ s granddaughter ’ s wishes. The applicant ’ s son-in-law had reiterated his willingness to allow the applicant to visit his granddaughter, but had informed the bailiff that she had refused to see her grandfather in his absence or in a different location than the one she had chosen. At the same time, the applicant had expressed his dissatisfaction with his son-in-law ’ s compliance with the final court judgment granting him contact rights, in so far as he had been influencing the child in choosing the locations of their meetings and therefore he had not allowed him to spend time with his granddaughter at his home. The applicant and his granddaughter had enjoyed the time together, while the applicant ’ s son-in-law had kept a low profile. Also the parties had a greed to allow the child and her grandfather to choose together the locations of their future meetings. At the end of the day the applicant ’ s granddaughter had refused her father ’ s proposal to travel back to her home in the company of her grandfather.

43 . On 9 February 2014 the bailiff accompanied once more the applicant to his granddaughter ’ s home. The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the applicant and his granddaughter had agreed for the meeting to take place in a public location. The applicant and his son-in-law had a disagreement on whether the location of the meetings could have be en chosen by the applicant on his own or only with the child ’ s consent. The interaction between the applicant and his granddaughter had been short and the child had behaved apprehensively towards him because he had scolded her over the phone prior to their meeting. Subsequently, the applicant and his son-in-law had had a fight and the latter had taken his daughter and had left. Before leaving the applicant ’ s son-in-law had stated that he had not complied with the judgment granting the applicant visiting rights because he had felt compelled, but as a result of the enforcement proceedings.

44 . On 2 April 2014, once more, the bailiff notified the applicant ’ s son ‑ in-law that he needed to comply with the domestic courts ’ judgment and that a new meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on 13 April 2014. She also reiterated that she would proceed to enforce of the judgment as provided, among other things, by Articles 910 and 911 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code if he refused to comply. Moreover, she drew the applicant ’ s so n -in-law ’ s attention to the provisions of Article 912 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code and informed him about the applicant ’ s right under the last paragraph of Article 912 to motion the courts to apply penalties if the child refused to comply even during those enforcement proceedings.

45 . On 5 May 2014 the applicant asked the bailiff to cease the enforcement proceedings. In his written request he stated, among other things, that the judgment could not be enforced because his son-in-law had influenced his granddaughter. Moreover, his son-in-law had allegedly informed him that he would never allow his granddaughter to visit his home.

46. On 22 July 2014 a bailiff located in the applicant ’ s home town informed the Government that no enforcement file had been registered by his office concerning the final judgment of 27 March 2012.

47 . On 25 July 2014 a second bailiff located in the applicant ’ s home town informed the Government that the applicant had not asked him to enforce the final judgment granting him visiting rights. However, the aforementioned bailiff stated that an unknown person had spoken to him in 2013 about a case similar to that of the applicant, but that after the discussion the person had left without returning. He had advised that person that the refusal of the child to have contact with him had been a problem and that the adult had to make efforts in order to rekindle the relationship with the child. At the same time he had advised that person to notify the child protection services and a psychologist in order to avoid any trauma for the child.

48 . On 29 July 2014 the bailiff employed by the applicant informed the Government that the applicant and his son-in-law had fought every time they had met. The applicant had been dissatisfied with his son-in-law ’ s presence at the meetings and had accused him that he had not allowed the child to go to his home. At the same time, the applicant ’ s granddaughter had obstinately refused to meet with her grandfather in her father ’ s absence. During each meeting the bailiff had repeatedly tried to convince the child to meet with her grandfather in her father ’ s absence, but she had refused.

5. Other relevant information

49 . On 5 February 2013 the Arbore Police Department informed the applicant ’ s son-in-law that, following his request, the applicant had been warned not to visit his granddaughter ’ s school, although he had spoken only to the teachers and had enquired about her schooling situation.

50 . On 23 July 2014 the Arbore Mayor ’ s Office informed the Government that they had not taken any steps in order to assist the applicant in the enforcement of his visiting rights because he had not asked them to assist him. Moreover, they acknowledged that the applicant ’ s son-in-law had complained before them that the applicant had visited his granddaughter ’ s school in breach of the visiting program me set out by the domestic courts. They also stated that the applicant ’ s son-in-law had attached a number of documents to his complaint including copies of the operative part of the judgment setting out the applicant ’ s visiting rights, a copy of the judgment dismissing the applicant ’ s criminal complaint against his son-in-law and the reports prepared by the bailiff employed by the applicant on 8 December 2013 and 12 January 2014.

B. Relevant domestic law

1 . Law no. 272/2004 on the protection of the rights of children published in the Official Gazette No. 557 of 23 June 2004

51. Articles 14 and 16 provided that a child had the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with his parents, relatives and other persons with whom he had developed a close connection. He also had a right to know his relatives and to maintain personal relations with them as well as with other persons with whom he had developed family relations if it did not affect his best interest. The child ’ s parents or any other legal representative could not prohibit the child ’ s contact with his grandparents, except in circumstances where a court had decided otherwise.

52 . Article 15 provided that the child ’ s personal relationships could be maintained by meeting the person entitled to have contact with him at the child ’ s or the aforementioned person ’ s home.

53 . On 3 October 2013 Law no. 272/2004 was amended. Following its amendment Article 15 also provided among other things that the parent li ving with the child had a duty to help maintain the child ’ s relationship with the other parent. In order to rekindle and maintain a child ’ s personal relationships, the social protection or the child protection agencies had to provide professional counsell ing to both the child and his parents upon their request. If the parent living with the child obstructed the child ’ s personal relations with the other parent by ignoring the schedule set out by the court or agreed on by the parties, the other parent could request the social assistance services from the child ’ s home to monitor the situation for up to six months. During the monitoring process the representatives of the social assistance services could attend the moment the parent not leaving with the child would take him from his home or return him and could interview the parents, the child or any other person either leaving with the child or not in order to produce a monitoring report. The monitoring report could recommend the extension of the monitoring period by a maximum of six months, the psychological counselling of one or both parents and a series of measures aimed at improving the child ’ s relation with the parent with whom he was not living. The monitoring report could also be used as evidence before the court.

54 . Following the amendment of Law no. 272/2004 on 3 October 2013 Article 16 1 was introduced. It provided that at the request of an interested person the domestic courts could order several measures, such as fines and security deposits, in order to secure the child ’ s contact rights with other persons.

2. The Former Romanian Civil Procedure Code

55 . The relevant provisions concerning interlocutory measures, namely Article 581, are set out in Costreie v. Romania (no. 31703/05, § 56, 13 October 2009).

56 . Article 300 provided that an appeal on points of law suspended the enforcement of a judgment only in cases concerning the moving of land borders, destruction of constructions, crops or of any other fixed work as well as in cases expressly provided by law.

3 . The Romanian Civil Procedure Code published in the Official Gaze tte No. 545 of 3 August 2012 e ntered into force on 5 February 2013

57 . Article 24 provided that the provisions of the New Civil Procedure Code applied only to trials and enforcement proceedings started after it had entered into force.

58 . Article 711 provided among other things that any interested party could contest the enforcement or the enforcement acts. The enforcement could also be contested if the bailiff refused to carry out an enforcement or to carry out an enforcement act according to law.

59 . Articles 909 provided among other things that if the debtor ignored the bailiff ’ s notification to observe the creditor ’ s contact rights, the bailiff could, at the creditor ’ s request, ask the court to apply penalties on the debtor.

60 . Article 910 provided among other things that if the debtor failed to comply with his duties within a month from the notification of the court order for penalties, the bailiff had to proceed with the enforcement. The enforcement had to be carried out in the presence of a representative of a child protection agency, and when the latter considered it necessary, in the presence of a psychologist assigned by him. If requested by the bailiff, public agents had to assist with the enforcement. Bullying or pressuring the child in order to successfully enforce a judgment was prohibited.

61 . Article 911 provided among other things that if the debtor was acting in bad faith and hid the child, the bailiff had to record the incident and inform the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the court charged with the enforcement proceedings in order to open criminal proceedings against the debtor for failure to comply with a court judgment.

62 . Article 912 provided among other things that if the bailiff noted that the child himself categorically refused to leave the debtor or was hostile towards the creditor, he had to produce a report describing the situation. He also had to communicate the aforementioned report to the parties and to the representative of the child protection agency. The representative of the child protection agency had to motion the competent court from the child ’ s home, for the court to set out, depending on the child ’ s age, a schedule for psychological counselling sessions for a period no longer than three months. The court had to examine the request urgently in a council chamber, by a final interlocutory judgment after summoning the parties and the person l iving with the child. The court- appointed psychologist had to produce a report at the end of the counselling sessions which had to be communicated to the court, the bailiff and to the child protection service. The bailiff had to resume the enforcement proceedings as provided by Article 910 after receiving the psychologist ’ s report. If the minor continued to refuse to comply, even during those enforcement proceedings, the creditor could ask the competent court from the child ’ s home to order penalties.

4 . The Former Romanian Criminal Code

63 . Article 307 provided among other things that the refusal of a parent to return a child without the consent of the other parent or the person enjoying custody rights in respect of the child was punishable by a prison sentence or by a fine. The same punishment could be applied in respect of the person who enjoyed custody rights if he or she had repeatedly prevented the child ’ s parents from maintaining contact with their child as agreed by the parties or set out by a court.

COMPLAINT

64. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention t h e applicant complained that the domestic authorities had been inactive and had failed to undertake all the necessary steps in order to have his visiting rights enforced speedily and to reunite him with his granddaughter .

THE LAW

65. The applicant alleged that the domestic authorities ’ failure to take all the necessary steps in order to have his visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter enforced breached his rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention , which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

A. The parties ’ submissions

1. The Government

66 . The Government raised a preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, arguing that the applicant could have asked the domestic courts to order psychological counselling sessions for his granddaughter as provided by Article 912 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code. Although the applicant had repeatedly expressed his wish to rekindle his relationship with his granddaughter at his home and he had been assisted by a bailiff, he had failed to initiate the aforementioned proceedings in order to have a domestic court decide on whether psychological counselling sessions had been needed giver his granddaughter ’ s hostility towards him.

67 . The Government also argued that the applicant had not brought disciplinary proceedings against the bailiff and had not initiated proceedings contesting the enforcement measures taken by the bailiff or the choices he had made in order to help rekindle the applicant ’ s relationship with his granddaughter. Moreover, the applicant had not asked the social protection service from the child ’ s domicile to monitor the enforcement proceedings, although the monitoring would have allowed him to identify the problems of the enforcement and to receive expert counselling.

68 . The Government further argued that the applicant had never informed the Court about the bailiff ’ s attempts to enforce the final judgment granting him contact rights. They considered that the applicant had wilfully failed to disclose essential factual information before the Court, namely that he had enforced the final judgment granting him contact rights with the assistance of the domestic authorities and without any objections from his son-in-law. Consequently, the Government considered that the applicant ’ s behaviour amounted to an abuse of the right to application.

69 . The Government acknowledged that, according to the Court ’ s case ‑ law, the domestic authorities had a duty to assist with the enforcement of final court judgments granting contact rights with children in cases of conflict between adults and of children refusing the enforcement of the aforementioned judgments. However, they submitted that the authorities ’ duty was one of means and not of results.

70 . The Government contended that the applicant had asked for the enforcement of the impugned judgment only on 11 November 2013, although the aforementioned judgment had been delivered on 27 March 2012. Although the applicant had been free to choose the means to enforce the impugned judgment and the way to use them, the authorities could react only within the limits of the mandate granted by the applicant. The aforementioned conclusion, accepted by the Court in the case of Câ rstoiu v. Romania (dec.), no. 20660/10, 7 May 2013, was even more relevant in the instant case given that the domestic courts had established only the schedule and the location of the applicant ’ s meetings with his granddaughter without ordering any forms of assistance, such as the child ’ s psychological counselling.

71 . The Government submitted that domestic law provided the applicant with various more or less direct means of rekindling his relationship with his granddaughter. Even though the applicant had used some of these means, he had failed to also use others. Moreover, in respect of the Suceava Child Protection Agency ’ s answer of 23 July 2013 he had failed to prove that he had made any attempts to obtain his son-in-law ’ s consent for psychological counselling sessions or that his granddaughter had been faced with a dangerous situation.

72 . The Government contended that during the three enforcement attempts made by the bailiff, the applicant ’ s son -in-law had cooperated with the authorities and had not prevented the applicant from spending time with his granddaughter. It was only the applicant who had objected to his granddaughter ’ s decisions to hold the meetings in public places and not at his home and in the absence of her father. Also on 5 May 2014 he had asked the bailiff to cease the enforcement proceed ings on the ground that his son ‑ in-law had been teaching his granddaughter to avoid a relationship with him . However, his son-in-law had not behaved hostile or had prevented him from contacting his granddaughter.

73 . The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had actively assisted the applicant in enforcing his visiting rights and both the bailiff and the domestic courts had reacted promptly to the applicant ’ s demand for enforcement. He had contact with his granddaughter. However, the measures taken by the authorities had not been able to produce their full effect on account of the particular circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant had failed to persist in enforcing his contact rights and that his granddaughter had needed time to reconnect with him.

74 . The Government acknowledged that the applicant had not been able to receive his granddaughter ’ s visit at his home. They contended, however, that it had been the applicant ’ s granddaughter who had been choosing the locations for their meetings and that the applicant had accepted in his appeal before the second-instance court a neutral location for the meetings with her.

75 . The Government contended that the enforcement of contact rights in the context of a delicate family situation was not dependent solely on the authorities ’ will and had also to consider the best interest of the child. All the parties involved had accepted that the applicant ’ s granddaughter had refused any contact with him in the form that had been set out by the judgment. It had been only the applicant who had continued to request the full enforcement of his visiting rights without having taken his granddaughter ’ s wishes or her best interest into consideration.

76 . The Gove rnment submitted that as in the case of Cârstoiu , cited a bove, the authorities had reacted prompt ly and efficient ly and within the mandate given to them by the applicant himself they had taken all necessary steps to facilitate the enforcement that could have been reasonably expected in the specific circumstances of the case.

2. The applicant

77 . The applicant submitted that he had exhausted the available domestic remedies. In particular, he had brought criminal proceedings against his son-in-law for obstructing the enforcement of the final judgment granting him visiting rights and had demanded a bailiff to enforce the aforementioned judgment.

78 . The applicant argued that the domestic authorities had failed to take the necessary steps in order to protect his right to respect for his family life and for more than four years he had been unable to visit his granddaughter. In this connection, he contended that the court proceedings which had granted him visiting rights had been excessively lengthy. Also he had been unable to enforce the judgments of the first and the second-instance courts immediately after they had been delivered. Even thought he had contacted his son-in-law repeatedly and had asked him to allow him to see his granddaughter as provided by the judgments, his son-in-law had refused. Moreover, the criminal proceedings he had opened against his son-in-law had also been lengthy.

79. The applicant contested the Arbore Mayor ’ s Office ’ s submission of 23 July 2014 before the Government that they had not assisted him with the enforcement of his visiting rights because he had not asked them to. He contended that the mayor ’ s office had been notified by his son-in-law that the applicant had visited his daughter ’ s school and that he had breached his visiting rights set out by a final court judgment. The Arbore Police Department had also been notified by his son-in-law and he had forwarded the relevant documents to the mayor ’ s office. Consequently, the latter had been aware of the parties ’ situation but had not taken any steps to mediate in the conflict between him and his son-in-law.

80 . The applicant submitted that the final judgment granting him visiting rights had not been fully enforced. The fact that he had been able to see his granddaughter several times in a public location had not amounted to an enforcement of his rights as stated by the court judgment. Consequently, given his son-in-law ’ s constant opposition to the enforcement proceedings he had withdrawn his enforcement request.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

1. Relevant principles

81 . The Court reiterates at the outset that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child, as well as by grandparent and child, of each other ’ s company constitutes a fundamental element of “family life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see L. v. Finland, no. 25651/94, § 101, 27 April 2000).

82 . The Court also reiterates that the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren is different in nature and degree from the relationship between parent and child and thus by its very nat ure generally calls for a different degree of protection. The right to respect for family life of grandparents in relation to their grandchildren primarily entails the right to maintain a normal grandparent-grandchild relationship through contacts between them, even though those contacts normally take place with the agreement of the person who has parental responsibility (see Kruškić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 10140/13 , §§ 120-122, 25 November 2014 and Mitovi v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 53565/13, § 58, 16 April 2015 (not final)).

84 . In relation to the State ’ s obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents and/or other members of the child ’ s family, Article 8 includes a person ’ s right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with the child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to “rebuild” the family; the State ’ s obligation is not one of result, but of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide , cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland , no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland , 23 Sep tember 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299 ‑ A; Gnahoré v. France , no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000 ‑ IX; and Mitovi , cited above , §§ 55-56) .

85 . In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly held that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, as far can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see Hokkanen , cited above, § 53; Ignaccolo-Zenide , cited above, § 96; Nuutinen , cited above, § 128; and Mitovi , cited above, § 56). The adequacy of the measures taken is to be judged by the swiftness of their implementation, as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for the relationship between the child and the parent who does not live with him or her; at the same time the use of sanctions must not be ruled out in the event of unlawful behaviour by the parent with whom the children live, even though coercive measures against the children are not desirable in this sensitive area (see Ignaccolo-Zenide , cited above, §§ 102 and 106; and Pascal v. Romania , no. 805/09, § 71, 17 April 2012).

86 . The Court further reiterates that active participation in proceedings concerning children is required under Article 8 of the Convention in order to ensure the protection of their interests, and that when an applicant applies for enforcement of a court order, his conduct as well as that of the courts is a relevant factor to be considered (see Glaser v. the United Kingdom , no. 32346/96, § 70, 19 September 2000; and Pascal , cited above, § 71).

87. Finally, as the Court has repeatedly held, in matters relating to their custody, the interest of children is of paramount importance. The child ’ s best interests must be the primary consideration (see, to that effect, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010, and Płaza v. Poland , no. 18830/07 , § 71, 25 January 2011 ) and may, depending on their nature and seriousness, override those of the parents (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII).

2. Application of the above principles to the present case

88 . The Court notes that the enforcement proceedings at issue clearly concern the applicant ’ s “family life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see Mitovi , cited above, § 66).

90 . Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds i t unnecessary to examine the Government ’ s preliminary objections, because it considers that the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

91 . The Court notes that the domestic courts dismissed the applicant ’ s action seeking custody of his granddaughter and that the applicant ’ s son ‑ in ‑ law remained the child ’ s sole custodian and legal representative. The Court also observes that the applicant was granted by way of a judicial decision a right to regular contact with his granddaughter at his home. The problems concerning the implementation of those contact rights arose immediately after the rights in question had been determined by the domestic courts; the applicant thus had to request the services of a bailiff in order to enforce the execution of his contact rights.

92 . In its assessment of the domestic authorities ’ conduct in respect of the enforcement of the judgment granting the applicant visiting rights, the Court notes that the domestic courts examined the applicant ’ s requests for custody or permanent visiting rights without undue delays; the proceedings lodged on 16 January 2011 ended on 27 March 2012, after approximately one year and two months for three levels of jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court notes that the enforcement of the second-instance court ’ s judgment delivered on 13 December 2011, approximately eleven months after the applicant had initiated the proceedings, was not suspended by the appeal on points of law lodged by the parties. Furthermore, the applicant failed to motion the domestic courts for interlocutory measures in respect of his visiting rights pending the outcome of the custody and permanent visiting rights proceedings. In this context, the Court cannot agree with the applicant ’ s argument that the proceedings open ed by him on 16 January 2011 had been excessively lengthy .

93 . The Courts also notes that even though the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s visiting rights ended on 27 March 2012 and were enforceable as of 13 December 2011, he requested a bailiff ’ s service in order to have the judgment enforced only on 11 November 2013. The Court further observes that, according to the available evidence, the applicant ’ s submission before it concerning the alleged refusal of all the three bailiffs in his hometown to help him enforce the judgment had not been conclusively substantiated. Moreover, the bailiff employed by the applicant took immediate action to enforce the judgment by motioning the domestic courts to approve the enforcement on 12 November 2013. Subsequently, he issued several summonses on the applicant ’ s behalf, and accompanied him to the child ’ s home on each of the dates set for his visits.

94 . The Court notes that according to Article 912 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code the bailiff had a lawful duty, in cases where he noted that the enforcement of a person ’ s visiting rights was prevented by the child ’ s hostility towards that person, to take measures on his own motion in order to initiate the procedure that wou ld have eventually led to court- ordered psychological counselling sessions. The Court also notes that according to the report produced by the bailiff during the first enforcement visit of 8 December 2013 s he had noted that the applicant ’ s granddaughter had a hostile attitude towards the applicant and had refused to leave with him in the absence of her father. The Court further notes that the bailiff waited for another two enforcement visits, that is until 2 April 2014, before she considered making use of the procedure provided for by the Article 912.

95 . Even though the bailiff waited some time before considering making use of the Article 912 procedure, the Court notes that, according to the reports produced during the fi rst two enforcement visits, the interaction between the parties, and in particular between the applicant and his granddaughter, seemed to have improved and tha t they had reached a stage where they could have decided together on the location of their meetings. While the third meeting recorded a relapse in the applicant ’ s relationship with his granddaughter as a result of the applicant scolding her over the phone, the Court notes that the parties have not submitted any information about any other subsequent meeting that might have taken place. At the same time the Court notes that the applicant has never complained before the domestic courts about any action and/or potential omission on the part of the bailiff and that on 5 May 2014 he decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.

96 . While it is true that the enforcement atte mpts did not result in the applicant hosting his granddaughter at his house , the Court notes that the attitude of the applicant ’ s son-in-law, even though a factor in the applicant ’ s inability to fully enforce the judgment granting him contact rights, was mostly caused by the child ’ s unwillingness to see her grandfather alone. Indeed, this is what the domestic authorities held in reply to the applicant ’ s criminal complaint regarding his son-in-law ’ s behavio u r. In this respect, the Court does not discern any arbitrariness or undue delay in the authorities ’ decisions not to pursue the applicant ’ s son-in-law criminally. Moreover, their reasoning, stressing that the applicant ’ s son-in-law had only observed the child ’ s wishes, does not appear devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, Sbârnea v. Romania , no. 2040/06 , § 119, 21 June 2011).

97. The Court also notes that starting from December 2011 when his visiting rights had become enforceable, the applicant failed to open any proceedings against his son-in-law seeking to have the civil courts order him to pay fines and to place a sum on deposit in the applicant ’ s name pending his full compliance with the court judgment.

98 . In this context, the Court considers that the conflict between the applicant and his son-in-law made it even more difficult for the domestic authorities to act in order to fully enforce the applicant ’ s visiting rights.

99. The Court observes that the child ’ s reluctance to see her grandfather was a constant element throughout the years, as evidenced not only by the reports prepared by the bailiff, but also by the reports prepared by the Agency and by the findings of the criminal and civil courts. However, whatever the reason for the applicant ’ s granddaughter ’ s attitude towards him, her reluctance cannot be imputed to the domestic authorities.

100 . Moreover, the tense situation betwe en the applicant and his son ‑ in ‑ law with regard to the enforcement of the judgment was constantly acknowledged by the domestic authorities who repeatedly delivered reasoned judgments that gave primary consideration to the best interest of the child.

101 . In the light of the delicate family situation presented by the instant case, the Court finds it very difficult to accept that ordinary civil enforcement proceedings could in themselves have improved the situation at hand. It considers that the facts of the case indicated clearly that a more sensitive approach towards the child was needed for the successful enforcement of the applicant ’ s contact rights. In this connection, the Court notes that during the mediation meeting organized by the Agency in 2011, even before the applicant ’ s visiting rights had become enforceable, the applicant was advised on the appropriate behavio u r that he should have had towards his son-in-law in front of the child in order to help improve his relationship with his granddaughter. However, according to the reports produced by the bailiff in 2013 and 2014, the applicant continued to behave aggressively towards his son- i n-law and seemed to have ignored the advice received.

102 . The Court also notes that after he was granted visiting rights by the domestic courts, the applicant did request the assistance of the Agency with a view to organis ing counselling session in the absence of his son-in-law. However, the sessions could not take place without the applicant ’ s son ‑ in ‑ law ’ s consent and there is no evidence in the file that the applicant attempted to obtain his consent. Moreover, there is no evidence in the file that the applicant attempted to initiate court proceedings seeking to compel his son-in-law to bring the child to group or individual counselling sessions. Consequently, the Court considers that the interaction between the applicant and his son-in-law made it particularly difficult for the domestic authorities to act to facilitate contact (see Fernandez Cabanillas v. Spain , no 22731/11, § 54, 18 February 2014) .

103 . The Court is aware that in difficult situations as the present one, involving unresolved issues between parents or relatives , a certain amount of time has to pass for the parties to be able to overcome emotional hurdles and establish a mature relationship focusing on the best interests of the child (see Trdan and Ć. v. Slovenia , no. 28708/06 , § 96, 7 December 2010). However, re-establishing contact with a child in such delicate circumstances requires long-term efforts on the part of all those concerned notwithstanding the public authorities ’ positive obligations to ensure the enforcement of contact rights, thereby protecting the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life. The Court reiterates in this connection that the obligation to take measures to facilitate contact is not absolute; moreover, it is an obligation of means, and not one of result.

104 . In so far as the applicant ’ s submissions before the Court may be understood to also amount to an allegation that the domestic authorities dealt with the enforcement proceedings brought before them with unreasonable delay, thus obstructing his visiting rights with respect to his granddaughter, the Court notes that in spite of the proceedings of a civil and criminal nature relating to the applicant ’ s contact with his granddaughter, the actual enforcement proceedings relating to the impugned judgments were never stayed by any court, and thus those proceedings cannot be regarded as having per se obstructed the exercise of the applicant ’ s rights of contact.

105 . In the light of the foregoing and in view of the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities, the Court considers that their handling of the applicant ’ s case had due regard to the best interests of the child in question and of the family as a whole, while taking all the steps to enforce the applicant ’ s contact rights which could reasonably have been required in the very difficult situation at hand.

106 . It follows that the application must be dismissed as manifestly ill ‑ founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 30 July 2015 .

Stephen Phillips Josep Casadevall Registrar President