CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE LÓPEZ GUERRA JOINED BY JUDGE MYJER

I certainly agree with the finding of no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in this case. The Romanian authorities duly addressed the application lodged by the applicant to enforce the judgments specifying his visiting schedule with his child, and adopted all reasonable measures to achieve that goal, including imposing a fine on the child ’ s mother. It fell to the Romanian courts to determine the measures to be taken in the best interests of the child and the means of enforcing them, and there is no evidence that they did not perform that task adequately. In a delicate and sensitive matter such as this, it is difficult (and is certainly not this Court ’ s role) to imagine what other measures the Romanian courts might have taken without negatively affecting a child of such a young age.

I cannot agree, however, with the reasoning of the judgment, which goes beyond examining the conduct of the Romanian authorities and censures the behaviour of the parties to the conflict. In my view, such an appraisal is unwarranted (as it had already been carried out by the Romanian courts, which had direct knowledge of the facts and contact with the parties in the case) and is inevitably conjectural and speculative, given that this Court has had no such direct knowledge or contact. I particularly disagree with the content of the criticism of the applicant ’ s behaviour.

It is asserted in paragraph 67 of the judgment that the applicant should have been present during the attempts to enforce the courts ’ decisions, accompanying the bailiff to the child ’ s mother ’ s home to pick him up, and in paragraph 68 that the father needed to take a “more sensitive approach”. The Chamber likewise reproaches the applicant for not having requested the assistance of social services or of a psychologist. It further indicates that long-term efforts were required from all persons concerned, “including the applicant” (see paragraph 69) and that he could have expected that a long-term commitment and much effort would be needed ( ibid . ).

In the circumstances of this case, I do not consider that it is the role of this Court to determine or censure the applicant ’ s conduct with respect to his child. In addition, I have serious doubts concerning the assertion in the judgment that the father should have been present when the child was taken from his mother ’ s home by the bailiff. Furthermore, I cannot endorse the criticism of the applicant for his lack of effort or sensitivity in a situation in which he has been allowed to see his son only three times in ten years, despite his many attempts to do so through legal proceedings brought in the Romanian courts.