THIRD SECTION

Application no. 67304/12 Iorgu RÄ‚ILEANU against Romania lodged on 10 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Iorgu Răileanu , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Gala ţ i . He is represented before the Court by Ms N. A. Daghie , a lawyer practising in Gala ţ i .

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

A. Visiting rights

On 30 April 2000 the applicant married E.R. On 7 September 2000 their daughter M.D. was born.

On 11 November 2006 the couple separated and their daughter remained with the mother. The applicant tried to maintain contact with his daughter, but his wife hindered systematically his attempts.

On 6 January 2009 the applicant brought proceedings in order to obtain rights of access to his daughter.

On 9 June 2009 the Gala ţ i District Court allowed the applicant ’ s request.

On 9 December 2009 the district court ’ s decision was amended by the Gala ţ i County Court which established a detailed visiting schedule for the applicant. The county court ’ s decision became final on 29 April 2010 when the appeals on points of law lodged by the parties were dismissed by the Gala ţ i Court of Appeal.

On 23 November 2010 the couple divorced and the mother was granted custody of the child . The divorce court made no new arrangement for the applicant ’ s contact rights.

B. Enforcement of visiting rights

According to the applicant, E.R. claimed that their daughter did not want to go with her father and thus systematically refused to open the door when the applicant came to collect the child.

On 24 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Gala ţ i Child Protection Agency ( Direc ţ ia General ă de Asisten ţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului Galaţi ), stating that his wife refused to give him access to the child and was manipulating the child into rejecting him, under threat of punishment. E.R. forbade the child from communicating with her father, sitting close to him, holding hands with him, kissing him or going into his car. The child was to run immediately inside to warn her mother when her father came to see her playing in the court yard.

On an unspecified date, the Child Protection Agency informed the applicant that according to his wife ’ s statement he was not obstructed in any way from visiting the child.

On 25 September and 23 November 2009 the applicant reiterated his request with the Child Protection Agency. He was informed that E.R. refused the Agency ’ s invitations to bring the child for a psychological evaluation. The Agency informed the applicant that the courts were better placed to deal with their situation.

On 5 January 2010 the applicant sent his wife a notification through the offices of a bailiff asking her to comply with the court order establishing the visiting rights. He informed E.R. that in case she refused, he would start the enforcement proceedings against her.

The applicant lodged two criminal complaints against E.R. for non ‑ compliance with a court order. They were both dismissed by the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the Gala Å£ i District Court (“the prosecutor”) on 8 January 2010 and 25 June 2010. After hearing the two spouses, the prosecutor observed that the applicant managed to see his daughter occasionally, that on other times the chid refused to see her father, or E.R. refused to give him the child, and that starting from March 2010 he had no longer exercised his visiting rights.

At the prosecutor ’ s request, the child underwent a psychological evaluation carried out by the Child Protection Agency. On 8 April 2010 the psychologist rendered her report. She concluded that the child was normally developed but showed signs of having been manipulated by her mother into not expressing any positive feelings towards her father. She advised the mother to encourage the child to maintain her relations with the applicant.

On 11 May and 12 June 2010 the parents attended two sessions of psychological counselling with the Child Protection Agency where the tense relations between them were confirmed. No other counselling meetings took place.

On 20 August 2010 the applicant started proceedings to have the county court ’ s decision of 9 December 2009 enforced. On 19 April 2011 the Gala ţi District Court dismissed an objection lodged by E.R., finding that she refused to comply with the court order.

On an unspecified date in 2010, the applicant lodged a request with the Gala ţ i District Court seeking to compel E.R. to bring their daughter to counselling. He argued that she was manipulating the child against him which rendered the exercise of his contact rights difficult.

The District Court rendered its decision on 2 November 2010. The court observed that, indeed, E.R. failed to take her daughter to counselling and reiterated that it was in the child ’ s best interest to maintain harmonious relations with both her parents. The court ordered E.R. to establish, together with the Child Protection Agency, a weekly counselling schedule for her daughter and to comply with it.

E.R. ’ s appeal against the district court ’ s decision was dismissed by the Gala ţ i County Court on 2 June 2011. The court observed that most of the applicant ’ s attempts to see his daughter according to the schedule set by court order had failed because of the mother ’ s opposition or because of the conflicts between the parents, and that the child exhibited signs of being manipulated by her mother against her father.

As the counselling failed to improve the child ’ s attitude towards her father, it was stopped after four sessions. The psychologist ’ s recommendations were communicated to the applicant on 12 July 2012.

The applicant continued his attempts to see his child, lodged new criminal complaints against the mother, sought the Child Protection Agency ’ s assistance, and had the mother fined for failure to respect the court order establishing the visiting schedule.

After the fine imposed on the mother, she allowed the applicant to see the child, but the latter refused to leave with her father.

The applicant lodged a request to obtain full custody of the child. The proceedings are currently pending with the courts.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities ’ failure to help him maintain contact with his daughter . He considers that the authorities did not respond adequately and swiftly to his requests for assistance, allowing thus their separation to deepen, with irreversible damage to their relationship.

Under Article 13 of the Convention he complains that the national law does not provide any effective remedy for the specific situation of family rights. He also reiterates that there is no possibility for him to complain effectively about the length of the proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with regard to the assistance provided by the authorities (courts, prosecutor and administrative entities) for the enforcement of his contact rights?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for seeking enforcement of his contact rights with his minor child , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?