6.  The first applicant, Ms O.C.I., was born in 1978 and lives in Tulcea. In 2005 she married P.L.R., an Italian national. The couple lived together in Italy, where O.C.I. gave birth to their children: the second applicant, P.A.R., in 2008, and the third applicant, N.A.R., in 2010. 7.  On 12 June 2015 the family went to Romania for the summer holidays. A few days later P.L.R. returned to Italy, expecting to go back to collect the applicants at the end of summer. On 25 June 2015 the first applicant informed her husband that she and the children would no longer return to Italy. She said that she saw no future for them there. Moreover, she told P.L.R. that he was a bad father who mistreated his children. 8.  On 14 September 2015 P.L.R. lodged a criminal complaint against the first applicant in Italy for child abduction in a foreign country. 9.  On 29 September 2015 P.L.R. applied to the Bucharest County Court for the return of the second and third applicants to Italy, the place of their habitual residence. He relied on the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) and those of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (“the Brussels II bis Regulation”). He contended that he had not agreed that the second and third applicants would remain permanently in Romania. In his view, the mother had unilaterally changed the children’s residence which, he argued, constituted wrongful retention. 10.  The first applicant opposed the action. She alleged that P.L.R. was a violent father who often got angry with is children when they did not obey him. According to the first applicant, P.L.R. would beat up the children, bruising their faces and giving them nose bleeds. He would pull them by the ears, slap their faces and hit their bottoms. Sometimes he would undress them and beat their bodies with hard objects. He would also call them names and humiliate them. The violence had worsened in recent years and the first applicant had become a target as well. She had tried to intervene but to no avail. She had encouraged her husband to seek medical help for his behaviour, but he had refused. Eventually, the first applicant had decided to find refuge with the children in Romania. She submitted as evidence several recordings of discussions between the applicants and P.L.R. during their common life in Italy, showing episodes similar to those described above. 11.  The first applicant further explained that the children had become integrated in their new environment. They attended school in Romania and had made friends. They participated in after-school activities that they had always wanted to try but had in the past been denied by their father. She also explained that the children refused to speak with their father. They feared going back to Italy and being again subject to abuse. 12.  The County Court heard evidence from the parents (hearing of 27 September 2015) and interviewed the children in the presence of a psychologist (on 16 November 2015). 13.  In a judgment of 18 January 2016 the Bucharest County Court allowed the application for the return of the children to their habitual residence in Italy. It found that there was nothing to oppose the children’s return to Italy. The court concluded that the mother had influenced the children against their father. It also considered that her decision to leave Italy had been made because of marital problems and because of her own dissatisfaction. As for the allegations that the children ran a grave risk of being exposed to physical or psychological harm at their father’s hands, it found as follows:
“The evidence in the file proves without doubt that the father used physical force and a raised voice to discipline his children. [P.L.R.] confirmed this in his statement before the court.
The child has the right to respect for his dignity, which entails prohibition under any circumstances of any act of physical or psychological violence against the child. It is therefore evident that nothing can justify a departure from this norm.” 14.  The first applicant appealed, and in a final decision of 30 March 2017 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the order to return the children. The Court of Appeal considered that the existence of criminal proceedings against the first applicant in Italy did not constitute grounds for refusing the return. In fact, the Court reasoned, in accordance with the European arrest warrant procedure, a criminal sentence would have the same effect regardless of whether the first applicant lived in Romania or Italy.
The Court of Appeal reassessed the allegations of grave risk for the children in Italy and concluded as follows:
“... it cannot be inferred that occasional acts of violence such as those which were proved by the recordings adduced in the file, would reoccur often enough to pose a grave risk ... under Article 13 § 1 (b) of the Hague Convention ...
... it is reasonable to expect that the Italian authorities would give the assurance that they would take the measures required by the [Brussels II bis Regulation], so that the aim of the Hague Convention would be observed, namely that a child is not removed or retained in the name of rights linked to his person which are to a larger or lesser extent debatable. It is also reasonable to suppose that if after the decision is rendered the children are exposed to a risk, [the Italian authorities] would take such requisite measures, if the risk was brought to their attention and supported by evidence.” 15.  On 11 July 2017 P.L.R. started enforcement proceedings through the offices of a bailiff in Romania. 16.  On 28 September 2017 the bailiff together with P.L.R. and a psychologist from the Bucharest Directorate General for Social Welfare and Child Protection (“the child-protection authority”) spoke with the children, with their mother’s permission. It was noted that the children refused to go back to Italy with their father. Consequently, the child-protection authority sought a court order for a three-month psychological counselling programme for the children. On 7 December 2017 the Tulcea District Court granted the request. The enforcement proceedings were stayed during that period. 17.  A report of 29 May 2018 on the results of the counselling stated that the children refused contact with their father despite the first applicant’s efforts to encourage that relationship. Therapy for the children was recommended. 18.  On 29 March 2018 P.L.R. sought enforcement in Romania of a Parma District Court order granting him sole parental authority. On 10 July 2018 the first applicant lodged an objection to the enforcement. On 13 July 2018 the court stayed the enforcement proceedings, at the first applicant’s request, on the grounds that the children’s refusal to go back to Italy with their father had already been established. 19.  It appears from the parties’ observations that at least on 26 September 2018 (the date of the most recent relevant information) the applicants were still living in Romania.