Published on 2 June 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 15520/24
Nicholas Paul ROONEY
against Lithuania
lodged on 17 May 2024
communicated on 16 May 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns international child abduction.
The applicant is a national of the United Kingdom. In May 2021 he married K., a Lithuanian national, in Italy. In August 2021 K. gave birth to their daughter, L. The family lived in Italy.
On 24 February 2023 K. informed the applicant that she intended to go to Lithuania for some time with their daughter. The applicant did not object to them visiting Lithuania. However, he submits that he eventually understood that K. did not intend to return to Italy. On 16 May 2023 he lodged an application for the return of the child, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), with the Italian central authority. It appears that the Lithuanian central authority (the State Child Rights and Adoption Service under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour) replied in July and September 2023, informing the Italian central authority, inter alia, that K. and L. had been located in Lithuania and that K. did not intend to return to Italy.
In October 2023 the applicant instituted proceedings for the return of the child before the Lithuanian courts. On 5 December 2023 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to order the return. The court acknowledged that the child’s habitual place of residence was in Italy and that her retention in Lithuania was unlawful. Moreover, none of the grounds laid out in Article 13 of the Hague Convention, when the return of the child may be refused, were applicable. However, according to the established case-law of the Lithuanian courts, the return of the child could also be refused in accordance with Article 12 of the Hague Convention, on the ground that the child was now settled in its new environment, regardless of whether a period of one year had elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention. The court then assessed various factual circumstances relating to K. and L.’s living situation in Lithuania and concluded that L. was already settled there. Thus, returning her to Italy would not be in her best interests.
On 18 January 2024 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on the same grounds. It noted that, according to the wording of Article 12 § 2 of the Hague Convention, the child’s settling in the new environment had to be assessed only in those cases where more than one year had elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention. However, that provision must not be interpreted in isolation, and the return of a child must not be ordered automatically or mechanically, but in each case priority had to be given to the child’s best interests. Thus, a child’s return could not be ordered unconditionally even if less than one year had lapsed from the unlawful removal. The one-year time-period was “procedural and formal” and it was not decisive; any other interpretation would be contrary to the principle of the primary importance of the best interests of the child. The Court of Appeal endorsed the lower court’s conclusion that L. had settled in her new environment in Lithuania and that returning her to Italy would not be in her best interests. That decision was not amenable to any further appeal.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention, in particular, that the Lithuanian courts’ refusal to order his daughter’s return to Italy on the ground that she had settled in her new environment in Lithuania was based on an erroneous interpretation of Article 12 of the Hague Convention. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the State Child Rights and Adoption Service failed to reply to the Italian central authority within the time-limit of six weeks provided under Article 11 of the Hague Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of:
(a) the domestic courts’ refusal to order the return of his daughter to Italy on the ground that she had settled in her new environment in Lithuania, regardless of the fact that the proceedings for the child’s return were instituted less than one year after the unlawful retention (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 109, ECHR 2013; Akdağ v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 49437/14, § 33, 18 October 2016; and S.N. and M.B.N. v. Switzerland, no. 12937/20, § 118, 23 November 2021);
(b) the length of the proceedings before the State Child Rights and Adoption Service under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour (see Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 66, 26 July 2011, and the cases cited therein)?