5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Csobánka, Hungary. 6.  In 2000 the applicant and H.B., also a Hungarian citizen, married in the United States of America, where they had lived since 1996. 7.  On 9 February 2003 their son was born in the US and acquired dual citizenship. 8.  The couple, who were becoming gradually estranged, returned to Hungary in 2004. On 26 December 2004, after a quarrel, H.B. took their son and left for an unknown destination. Over the next two weeks, he informed the applicant by telephone about the condition of their son on a few occasions. After January 2005 the calls stopped. Since then, the applicant has had no contact with her son. 9.  Subsequently, the applicant filed for divorce. Since the whereabouts of H.B. were unknown, he did not personally participate in the proceedings and his interests were represented by a guardian ad litem. 10.  On 16 November 2005, as an interim measure immediately enforceable irrespective of any appeal, the Szentendre District Court placed the child with the applicant, pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings. The interim decision became final on 14 January 2006. 11.  On 28 February 2007 the District Court pronounced the divorce of the applicant and H.B. As regards the child, the court noted that H.B. had taken him unlawfully and had deprived the applicant of any possibility of seeing her son for over two years. The court granted the applicant sole custody of the child, terminated H.B.’s parental rights and ordered him to pay child maintenance. The court did not grant H.B. any visiting rights. The judgment became final on 24 April 2007. It appears that this decision was served on the guardian ad litem but not on H.B. 12.  Meanwhile, on 29 November 2005 the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint with the Szentendre Police Department alleging child abduction. 13.  On 7 December 2005 the authorities carried out an identity check on H.B. who declared his address to be in Sopron, Hungary. 14.  On 3 February 2006 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint, again requesting the authorities to issue a warrant against H.B. 15.  On 20 March 2006 the police again carried out an identity check on H.B. in Sopron. He declared the same address as on 7 December 2005. 16.  On 3 April 2006 the applicant filed a complaint with the authorities pointing out that they had already had two opportunities to interrogate H.B. and obtain information regarding the whereabouts of the child, but they had failed to do so. 17.  On 18 May 2006 the Szentendre Police Department issued a warrant against H.B. 18.  On 25 May 2006 the investigation was suspended because ‑ according to the information the Szentendre Police Department had at that point ‒ H.B.’s place of residence had become unknown and the proceedings could not be continued in absentia. 19.  On 29 May 2006 the applicant’s complaint was dismissed (see paragraph 16 above). 20.  On 23 May 2007 the Sopron Police Department carried out a third identity check on H.B. at the police station. He informed the authorities of an address, although an incomplete one, in London (United Kingdom) where the child was allegedly living with his grandmother. After questioning, he was released. 21.  Since H.B.’s address had become known, on 29 May 2007 the Szentendre Police Department decided to continue the investigation. The following day, 30 May 2007, that is to say after the judgment on the parties’ divorce had been delivered, the District Court was informed about the location of H.B. 22.  On 9 August 2007 the resumed investigation was terminated for lack of any offence. According to the reasoning underlying the decision, the crime of unlawful change of a minor’s residence may be committed only with intent, whereas the investigation concluded that H.B. was not aware of the District Court’s judgment obliging him to hand over the child to the applicant. 23.  On 2 April 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sopron Police Department alleging H.B.’s failure to provide child maintenance. On 16 June 2008 the authorities terminated the investigation, stating that the offence of failure to provide child maintenance may be committed only with intent, whereas the investigation concluded that H.B. was not aware of the District Court’s judgment containing the obligation to pay child maintenance. 24.  The complaint submitted by the applicant on 27 June 2008 was rejected by the Sopron Police Department on 16 July 2008. 25.  On 4 April 2008 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint with the Szentendre Police Department. The applicant and her father were interviewed in the course of the investigation. However, on 11 November 2009 the investigation was terminated for lack of evidence. 26.  A complaint submitted by the applicant challenging this decision was dismissed on 17 December 2009. 27.  In June 2013 the applicant’s parents received an official letter notifying them of the amount to be paid for the child’s school books. As a consequence, they became aware that the child was registered as attending school in Sopron. On the basis of this information, on 28 June 2013 the applicant’s father lodged a criminal complaint with the Szentendre Police Department alleging unlawful change of a minor’s residence. 28.  On the same day the criminal complaint was transferred to the Sopron Police Department, within whose territorial competence it fell. However, on 22 October 2013 the investigation was suspended because after the authorities had attempted to establish the whereabouts of the suspect, his address again became unknown. A warrant was issued against H.B. 29.  Previously, on 6 February 2006 the applicant had requested the enforcement of the District Court’s interim measure of 16 November 2005 that placed the child with the applicant (see paragraph 10 above). 30.  On 17 March 2006 the bailiff requested that the Sopron Police Department issue a warrant against H.B. On 30 March 2006 the bailiff visited the registered address of H.B. and established that neither he nor the child lived there. He found out that H.B. and the child might be residing in the United States. Apparently, no further measures were taken in these proceedings. 31.  In reply to a related complaint, on 4 May 2012 the applicant was informed that, in the view of the Hungarian Court Bailiffs Chamber, the officer concerned was not responsible for the shortcomings of the enforcement proceedings since H.B. and the child were resident abroad, and diplomatic steps were therefore required to enforce the court’s order. 32.  Meanwhile, on 13 April 2007 the applicant contacted the Ministry of Justice, submitting that her child might be in the US. She later informed the Ministry that H.B. had in the meantime brought him back to Hungary. 33.  On 12 June 2009, in criminal proceedings conducted for fraud and other offences, international and European warrants were issued against H.B. On 27 July 2009 the Ministry of Justice requested the Hungarian Centre for International Cooperation in Criminal Matters to issue a warrant against H.B. 34.  On 15 December 2009 the Centre forwarded to the Ministry of Justice the information received from its US and Canadian partner offices, according to which H.B. had been placed in immigration detention in Canada. 35.  On 15 December 2009 H.B. was expelled from Canada and was ordered to leave the country before 7 January 2010. However, he escaped from custody and the Canadian authorities notified their Hungarian counterparts that he had booked a plane ticket to Vienna under a false name. 36.  The Hungarian authorities requested Austrian cooperation, but on 12 January 2010 they were notified that H.B. had not been on the flight indicated by the Canadian police. 37.  On 6 June 2012 the applicant’s mother informed the Ministry of Justice that she thought the child had been taken to California. 38.  The Ministry of Justice sent a request to the US for facilitation of child contact under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. However, the measures taken by the US authorities in order to find the child were unsuccessful. On 22 October 2012 they indicated that the child and H.B. were probably in Canada and transferred the request to the Canadian authorities. The proceedings of the latter were also fruitless. 39.  On 24 April 2013 the applicant informed the Hungarian Ministry of Justice that the H.B. was on the list of wanted persons in Canada and that he had previously fled from custody. On the basis of this information, on 26 April 2013 the Ministry of Justice asked the Canadian authorities to establish the child’s place of residence. However, they were unable to do so. 40.  On 8 May 2014 H.B. was apprehended in Budapest and the child could at last be located. 41.  Since the applicant was living abroad at that time, the child’s place of residence was established temporarily with her father in Csobánka, Hungary. 42.  The relevant provisions of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which entered into force on 1 July 1986 with regard to Hungary state as follows:
“The States signatory to the present Convention,
Firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody,
Desiring to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence, as well as to secure protection for rights of access,
Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have agreed upon the following provisions –
...
Article 1
The objects of the present Convention are –
a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.
...
Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.
Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.
Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) ‘rights of custody’ shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) ‘rights of access’ shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.
...
Article 11
The judicial or administrative authorities of Contracting States shall act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.
If the judicial or administrative authority concerned has not reached a decision within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings, the applicant or the Central Authority of the requested State, on its own initiative or if asked by the Central Authority of the requesting State, shall have the right to request a statement of the reasons for the delay. ...
Article 12
Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.
The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.
Where the judicial or administrative authority in the requested State has reason to believe that the child has been taken to another State, it may stay the proceedings or dismiss the application for the return of the child.
Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.
Article 14
In ascertaining whether there has been a wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take notice directly of the law of, and of judicial or administrative decisions, formally recognised or not in the State of the habitual residence of the child, without recourse to the specific procedures for the proof of that law or for the recognition of foreign decisions which would otherwise be applicable.
...
Article 16
After receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child in the sense of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice.
Article 17
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.
...
Article 19
A decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue.
Article 20
The return of the child under the provisions of Article 12 may be refused if this would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms....”