Published on 8 January 2024
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 3509/23 and 32148/23
D.I.T.P. against Romania and A.B. and I.M.B. against Romania
lodged on 12 January 2023 and 14 August 2023 respectively
communicated on 11 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the State’s positive obligations to ensure access to education to the applicants D.I.T.P. (application no. 3509/23) and I.M.B. (application no. 32148/23) in the absence of their parents’ cooperation and agreement as to which school their children should attend. They also concern the right to respect for the applicants’ private and family life, as detailed below.
Application no. 3509/23 (D.I.T.P. v. Romania)
On 27 August 2021 the applicant’s mother lodged an action by means of an interim procedure, seeking to obtain a decision by the Bucharest District Court replacing the father’s consent to re‑register the applicant for the school year 2021/22 in the same private school that she had attended since she had been two years old. Both parents’ consent was needed for signing the contract with the school, at the beginning of each new school year.
On 28 April 2022, while the above proceedings were pending, the applicant’s mother also asked the District Court to replace the father’s consent for the school year 2022/23.
On 20 May 2022 the District Court dismissed the action observing, notably, that it was no longer in the child’s interest to move back to her old school so late into the school year. The decision was upheld by the Bucharest County Court by a final decision of 5 September 2022.
The applicant, who is represented before the Court by her mother and counsel, complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Application no. 32148/23 (A.B. and I.M.B. v. Romania)
Following the divorce of the first applicant (A.B.) from his wife (X), on 23 August 2021 the Bucharest District Court decided to set the residence of the second applicant (I.M.B.) with her father, in Bucharest. This decision was confirmed by the Bucharest County Court and became final on 24 May 2022. The second applicant was registered in a school that both parents chose together. However, X took the second applicant away without the father’s consent, moved with her to Braşov (about 200 km away from Bucharest) and registered her in a private school in that town.
By decision of 25 January 2023, obtained by the first applicant by means of an interim action, the Bucharest District Court annulled the second applicant’s registration to the school in Braşov and ordered X to bring her back to Bucharest to allow her to continue her education in her former school.
The enforcement proceedings of the decisions of 23 August 2021 and 25 January 2023 have so far failed and the second applicant is still living in Braşov with her mother.
The first applicant complains, on his behalf, about the non-enforcement of the custody arrangements (Article 8 of the Convention), and, on behalf of the second applicant, about an infringement of her right to education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
For both applications:
1. Have the applicants D.I.T.P. and I.M.B. been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, given the time it took the courts to decide on the request to replace D.I.T.P.’s father’s consent for her school registration for the year 2021/22 and the rejection of the request to replace the father’s consent for the school year 2022/23, and given the non‑enforcement of the court decision ordering I.M.B.’s mother to return the child to Bucharest and allow her to attend her habitual school (see, notably, Folgerø and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 15472/02, § 84, ECHR 2007-III, Costello‑Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C, and Velyo Velev v. Bulgaria, no. 16032/07, §§ 31-34, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?
Application no. 3509/23 (D.I.T.P. v. Romania)
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in the proceedings giving rise to the final decision of 5 September 2022 of the Bucharest County Court? In particular:
(a) has the length of those proceedings affected the applicant’s right to respect for private life, given that she was in practice prevented from continuing education in the school which she had attended since she was two years old (see Costello-Roberts, cited above, § 36)?
(b) have the courts correctly evaluated and taken into account the applicant’s best interests and have they sufficiently balanced all conflicting interests at stake (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 204, 10 September 2019)?
Application no. 32148/23 (A.B. and I.M.B. v. Romania)
(3) Has there been a violation of A.B.’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
In particular, have the authorities (child protection authority, bailiff’s office, police, prosecutor’s office and domestic courts) provided sufficient assistance to the applicant for the enforcement of the decision of 23 August 2021 of the Bucharest District Court placing I.M.B. in his care, and of the decision of 25 January 2023 of the Bucharest District Court ordering I.M.B.’s mother to return the child to Bucharest (see, notably, Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, nos. 8673/05 and 9733/05, § 127, 1 December 2009, Mihailova v. Bulgaria, no. 35978/02, § 80, 12 January 2006, and M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, § 177, ECHR 2015 (extracts) with further references)?
APPENDIX
(anonymity has been granted)
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
1.
3509/23
D.I.T.P. v. Romania
12/01/2023
D.I.T.P.
2014
Cernica
2.
32148/23
A.B. and I.M.B. v. Romania
14/08/2023
A.B.
1966
Bucharest
I.M.B.
2014
Braşov
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy