Published on 22 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 37268/25
Maxime PREVOST
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 7 November 2025
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged international abduction of the applicant’s child.
The applicant, a French national, resided in France with his partner C.L., who is a Moldovan national. On 26 October 2021 they had a daughter.
They separated and subsequently initiated court proceedings in France concerning custody rights. On 14 March 2023 a French court set up provisional shared custody of the child and temporarily, established the child’s habitual residence with the mother until the examination of the merits of the case. In April 2023 C.L. took the child to Moldova and refused to return.
The applicant complained before the Moldovan courts that C.L. had taken their child to Moldova despite ongoing custody proceedings in France and sought her return to France under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. On 1 December 2023 the Chișinău Court of Appeal held that although it appeared that the child was being unlawfully kept in Moldova without the applicant’s consent, the child’s entry into the country had been lawful and therefore her return was not warranted.
The applicant applied to the Supreme Court of Justice, which on 15 August 2025 dismissed his request with final effect, concluding that C.L. did not need the applicant’s consent to leave France together with the child. The court also held that the child had been living in Moldova and had settled in a new, safe environment and that her return to France was not warranted
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention of the Moldovan authorities’ failure to order the return of his child to her habitual residence in France and to sufficiently justify their decisions.
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, owing to the refusal of the Moldovan courts to have his child returned to France? In particular, have the domestic courts correctly evaluated the best interests of the child in the light of the exceptions provided for by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 92-108, ECHR 2013; Michnea v. Romania, no. 10395/19, §§ 35-39, 7 July 2020; and Viotto v. Republic of Moldova [Committee], no. 12083/20, § 16, 13 June 2023)?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning the return of his child to France, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?