Published on 19 July 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 51395/20 Li AO against Poland lodged on 13 November 2020 c ommunicated on 29 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the length and the outcome of proceedings under the Hague Convention instituted by the applicant, a Chinese national, to seek return of her minor child, O.B., who had been wrongfully abducted from Belgium to Poland by the child ’ s Polish father.

On 4 October 2018 the Belgian Central Authority notified the Polish authorities that the child had been taken away from her permanent place of residence in Belgium where the applicant had been exercising shared custody and contact rights.

On 10 December 2018 the Gda ń sk Regional Court granted the applicant ’ s and the Polish prosecutor ’ s applications and ordered that the child be returned to Belgium.

On 14 May 2020 the Warsaw Court of Appeal reversed that decision, holding that child ’ s return to Belgium without her father would expose her to the risk of a “psychological harm” and an “intolerable situation” within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. The family court based its conclusion, on the one hand, on the findings of a report drawn up by expert psychologists on 20 January 2020 that essentially stated that the father was a better suited parent, and on the other hand, on the child ’ s father ’ s argument that in Belgium he had been sought under arrest warrant for child abduction.

The applicant submitted that her contact rights during the impugned proceedings had not been sufficiently ensured.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

2. In particular,

(a) is the interpretation of the notions of a “psychological harm” and an “intolerable situation” within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention as it was applied by the domestic courts in the case at hand, compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention?

(b) is the dismissal of the applicant ’ s Hague Convention request compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as the impugned Hague Convention proceedings lasted one year and seven months, including one year and five months on appeal?

(c) was the applicant ’ s right of access to the child ensured during the impugned Hague Convention proceedings in compliance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention?