CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KRENC

1. This case is difficult, as are all cases concerning international removals of children.

2. I hesitated for a long time as to whether the domestic judicial decisions were sufficiently reasoned (§§ 24-27), especially in view of the decisions given previously by the Geneva courts on 6 February 2017 (§ 19) and 21 November 2017 (§ 21). I ultimately joined all my colleagues in finding no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, given that in the present circumstances the Court did not have strong enough reasons to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts (see, regarding the Court’s scrutiny in this sphere, X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 92-108, ECHR 2013, and S.N. and M.B.N. v. Switzerland , no. 12937/20, §§ 97-100, 23 November 2021).

3. I would, however, emphasise that to my mind the present judgment cannot be understood as implying or condoning the breaking-off of all contact between the applicant and M. In their observations to the Court, the Government pointed out that by decision of 25 December 2019, the Vasileostrovsky district court in St Petersburg had authorised the applicant to communicate with his daughter by Internet, but that the applicant had had scant recourse to that option. The latter replied in his observations that the paucity of the communications had been due to obstruction on the part of E. Without pronouncing on that point, I think it should be stressed that a parent’s right to maintain personal relations with his or her child is an integral part of the right secured under Article 8 of the Convention ( see, among other authorities, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 136, ECHR 2010 ), respect for which must be ensured by the States by means of appropriate measures (see Hromadka and Hromadkova v. Russia , no. 22909/10, §§ 165-169, 11 December 2014). The present judgment does not call into question that right which is undisputed by the Government.

[1] On this aspect or dimension of the principle of effectiveness, see Daniel Rietiker, “The Principle of ‘Effectiveness’ in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Its Different Dimensions and Its Consistency with Public International Law – No Need for the Concept of Treaty Sui Generis ”, in 79 (2010) Nordic Journal of International Law , 245, at pp. 267-271; see also Georgios A. Serghides, The Principle of Effectiveness and its Overarching Role in the Interpretation and Application of the ECHR: The Norm of all Norms and the Method of all Methods, Strasbourg, 2022, at pp. 606-637, 777-781.

[2] On this aspect or dimension of the principle of effectiveness, see Daniel Rietiker, op. cit. at pp. 271-275; and Georgios A. Serghides, op. cit. , at pp. 637-663, 777-781.

[3] Compare, in a different factual and legal context, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, ECHR 2010.