5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Ploiești.
6.  At the relevant time, he was married to I.M.U. and they had a son together, born in 2006. Following a series of conflicts between the parents concerning their son’s education, on 13 September 2012 I.M.U. filed for divorce and custody of the child. On 19 October 2012 she left the family home and took the child with her. They moved in with her parents and grandmother.
7.  On 2 November 2012 the applicant lodged an application for an interim injunction (ordonanţă preşedenţială), seeking to be granted sole or shared custody of the child during the divorce proceedings, or alternatively the right to visit the child during those proceedings according to a detailed schedule that he submitted to the court.
8.  The Ploiești District Court gave its ruling on 8 January 2013. It ruled that it would not be in the child’s interests to change his residence temporarily during the divorce proceedings. It also observed that the applicant had not been prevented from visiting his child in the mother’s new home, as he himself had confirmed in his statements before the court. The court noted that in any case the law did not provide for the possibility to have visiting rights established during divorce proceedings. It relied on Article 6132 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 18 below).
9.  Following an appeal by the applicant, that ruling was upheld by the Prahova County Court, which rejected all the arguments raised by the applicant concerning his right to visit his child. The court reiterated that the law did not allow for the granting of that right during divorce and custody proceedings. The court also ordered the applicant to pay 1,000 Romanian lei (RON – approximately 230 euros (EUR)) to I.M.U., representing the costs that I.M.U. had incurred. The court delivered the final decision in the case on 27 May 2013.
10.  In June 2013 the applicant, who was in the habit of visiting his son at school in the mornings, was removed from the school premises by the school guard, who informed him that from then on, he would need the school principal’s permission if he wanted to see his son at the school.
11.  According to the applicant, after the final decision of 27 May 2013 (see paragraph 9 above), I.M.U. and her family denied him any further contact with his son. It appears from the parties’ submissions that the applicant was able to see his son on 27 December 2012, between 31 December 2012 and 2 January 2013, on 20 January, between 2 and 3 March, on 14 and 17 March, on 28 April, on 2, 6 and 12 May 2013, and one last time, on 9 June 2013, after the court had given its ruling in respect of the interim injunction.
12.  On 30 October 2013 the applicant added a copy of the District Court’s ruling of 8 January 2013 (see paragraph 8 above) to the case file.
13.  After several postponements that were due mainly to the parties’ requests to be allowed to submit additional evidence, on 22 January 2014 the Ploieşti District Court gave its judgment on the divorce proceedings, ruling that the child’s sole residence would be with his mother. The applicant was granted the right to have the child stay at his home every other weekend and for two weeks during the summer holidays. On 21 February 2014 the applicant asked the District Court to finish the drafting of its written judgment faster, and reiterated that he had been unable to see his child for the past ten months.
14.  On 4 March 2014 the judgment was served on the applicant at his address; on 28 March 2014 he lodged an appeal. On 2 April 2014 I.M.U. also lodged an appeal against the District Court’s judgment. Despite requests from the applicant to expedite the proceedings in order to allow him to re-establish contact with his son, the case file could not be sent to the Prahova County Court before 7 May 2014 owing to administrative problems within the District Court.
15.  The start of the proceedings before the Prahova County Court was postponed on several occasions in order to allow the parties to get acquainted with the submissions in the file, to hear evidence and to obtain an expert evaluation of the relations between the parents and between each parent and the child. The County Court delivered its ruling on 22 October 2015. It upheld the previous decision adopted by the District Court.
16.  Both parties lodged appeals against the County Court’s decision. At the applicant’s request, the case was sent to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. After several postponements to the proceedings, on 2 November 2016 the Bucharest Court of Appeal delivered the final decision in the case. It upheld the ruling of the District Court, but made some amendments to the applicant’s visiting schedule.
17.  On 19 February 2018 the child moved in with the applicant, at the boy’s own express request and in accordance with an agreement signed before a notary by both parents, following the mother’s decision to move permanently to another town.