Source: https://www.incadat.com/en/case/1177
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:35:11+00:00

Document:
Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], No 41615/07, ECHR 2010; Raban v. Romania, No 25437/08, 26 October 2010; Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, No 14737/09, 12 July 2011; X v. Latvia, No 27853/09, 13 December 2011; Maire v. Portugal, No 48206/99, ECHR 2003 VII; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, No 31679/96, ECHR 2000 I; Bianchi v. Switzerland, No 7548/04, 22 June 2006; Carlson v. Switzerland, No 49492/06, 6 November 2008; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, No 39388/05, 6 December 2007; Gnahoré v. France, No 40031/98, ECHR 2000 IX; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, Series A No. 299 A; Kutzner v. Germany, No 46544/99, ECHR 2002 I; Tiemann v. France and Germany (dec.), Nos. 47457/99 and 47458/99, ECHR 2000 IV; Lipkowsky and McCormack v. Germany (dec.), No 26755/10, 18 January 2011.
The proceedings related to a child born in Italy in June 2009 to an Estonian mother and an Italian father. Following the birth relations between the parents deteriorated. Mother and child travelled to Estonia on several occasions. On 2 March 2011, the mother again took the child to Estonia, but they did not return as agreed on 11 March.
On 7 March, the mother applied to the Tartu County Court for sole custody. On 16 March, the father travelled to Estonia, but he did not see his daughter as the mother only agreed for contact to happen in the offices of a law firm. On 29 March 2011, the father made a request to the Italian Ministry of Justice for the child's return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. On 10 May 2011, the father's return application was filed in the Tartu County Court in Estonia.
On 7 October 2011, the Tartu County Court found the retention of the child to be wrongful and held that the Article 13(1)(b) exception had not been made out. In this it held that: the child's return would not cause her more suffering than it would an average two-year-old; given the available evidence - including expert opinions - it could not be concluded that the father had ill-treated the child or been violent towards the mother and it could not be held that the child's return would be contrary to her interests.
The Court dismissed the mother's arguments based on the child's separation from her, in this it noted that the Hague Convention did not provide for the return of the child to the applicant parent, but to the other country. The Court held that the mother's argument surrounding the impossibility of her return to Italy because of the risk of arrest, were irrelevant because the Italian authorities could in any event make use of the European arrest warrant to secure her extradition.
On 12 December 2011, the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling. It noted that under the Hague Convention the child's swift return to her habitual residence was presumed to be in her best interests. The Court of Appeal concluded that the return of the child would not necessarily lead to her separation from the mother and that she would not be placed in an intolerable situation.
The mother's evidence, which the trial Court had disregarded, did not demonstrate reliably that the father had abused the child. The Court found that the parents' mutual accusations indicated that there were strained relations between them, but did not prove the existence of the grounds for refusing the return of the child under Article 13(1)(b).
In February 2012, the Supreme Court declined to examine the case. On 29 February 2012, the mother received a bailiff's notice that the child was to be returned to Italy within 10 days. On 2 March 2012, a hearing took place before the Milan Youth Court in Italy at which mother and child were present.
On 6 March 2012, mother and child filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights relying on Articles 3, 6(1), 8 and 14 of the ECHR, that the Estonian courts' decision to order the child's return to Italy had been in breach of international law and contrary to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber), Application No 41615/07 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1323]; Raban v. Romania, Application No. 25437/08 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1330]; Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, Application No. 14737/09 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1152] and X. v. Latvia, Application No 27853/09 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1146].
The Court exercised its power of characterisation to rule that the applicants' complaints fell to be examined under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Application that the Estonian courts' decision to return the child to Italy had been in breach of international law and contrary to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible.
The Court held that Article 8 of the ECHR was applicable since the Estonian decisions interfered with the applicants' right to family life, whether due to the difficulties of continuing to live together or to the inherent obligation to relocate to another country.
The Court then considered the application of Article 8. As regards the lawfulness of the interference, the Court noted that the Hague Convention had been incorporated into Estonian law and that the return petition had been dealt with by competent courts at three levels of jurisdiction and that the courts had concluded in reasoned decisions, showing no sign of arbitrariness, that the retention was wrongful and that the child should be returned to Italy.
Consequently, the return decision was "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8(2) of the ECHR. The Court further noted that the domestic courts' decisions pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the child and her father.
Turning to whether the interference with the applicants' rights was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8(2) of the ECHR, the Court noted first that the Estonian courts did not order the return of the child automatically or mechanically. The applicants were able to present their case fully. "The fact certain requests [...] for an additional hearing, the examination of witnesses and a psychiatric expert examination [of the child] were dismissed did not render the proceedings unfair."
The Court stated that it attached "particular importance in this context to the need to conduct the proceedings in question swiftly and to the fact that these proceedings were not meant to determine the merits of the custody issue (Article 19 of the Hague Convention)".
As to whether the domestic authorities had succeeded in striking a fair balance between the various interests at stake, bearing in mind the child's best interests were the primary consideration and whether they had conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation, the Court observed that the Estonian courts had "based their decisions on ample evidence adduced by the parties and obtained by the courts themselves".
The Court noted that the domestic authorities had proceeded from the presumption that pursuant to the rationale of the Hague Convention, the immediate return of the child to her habitual place of residence was in her best interests and it also had a general preventive effect.
Therefore, the courts had considered that the return of the child could only be refused in exceptional circumstances. In this the Court cited its own previous decisions Maumousseau and Washington v. France, Application No. 39388/05 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 942] and Lipkowsky and McCormack v. Germany, Application No. 26755/10 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1201], where it had also found that the exceptions for not returning a child under the Hague Convention had to be interpreted strictly.
The Court rejected the mother's arguments that the Estonian courts had failed to analyse the evidence in the case. The Court did not find "any degree of arbitrariness on the part of the Estonian courts in not attaching paramount importance to the fact that [the mother] had reported the [father] for committing certain offences". The Court noted that the presumption of innocence was a right which was also protected under the ECHR.
As to the mother's argument that the father would continue to work and the child would be cared for by grandparents or carers, the Court noted that the Hague Convention could not be deemed to determine custody rights. Turning to the mother's argument that it would be impossible for her to return to Italy, the Court held, inter alia, that it was not for it to assess the probability of the mother's arrest by the Italian authorities.
The Court also noted that the mother had lived in Italy for a certain period of time. It therefore concluded that the Estonian courts, in dismissing the mother's arguments about the impossibility of return, had not overstepped their margin of appreciation. In the light of all these findings the Court ruled that the complaints of the mother and child were manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected. The application was held to be inadmissible.
La procédure concernait une enfant née en Italie en juin 2009 d'une mère estonienne et d'un père italien. Après la naissance de l'enfant, la relation entre les parents s'est dégradée. La mère et l'enfant se sont rendues en Estonie à plusieurs reprises. Le 2 mars 2011, la mère a de nouveau emmené l'enfant en Estonie, mais contrairement à ce qui était convenu, elle n'est pas rentrée en sa compagnie le 11 mars.
Le 7 mars, la mère avait introduit une demande auprès du Tribunal de comté (County Court) de Tartu en vue d'obtenir la garde exclusive. Le 16 mars, le père s'est rendu en Estonie mais n'a pas vu sa fille dans la mesure où les visites consenties par la mère devaient avoir lieu dans le cabinet d'un avocat.
Le 29 mars 2011, le père a introduit une demande auprès du Ministère italien de la Justice en vue d'obtenir le retour de l'enfant en vertu de la Convention de La Haye de 1980 sur l'enlèvement d'enfants. Le 10 mai 2011, la demande de retour formée par le père a été déposée devant la County Court de Tartu (Estonie).
Le 7 octobre 2011, la County Court de Tartu a estimé que le non-retour de l'enfant était illicite et que l'exception prévue à l'article 13(1)(b) n'était pas établie, en ce que : l'enfant ne serait pas plus affectée par le retour qu'un autre enfant de deux ans ; étant donné les preuves disponibles - notamment les avis d'experts - rien n'attestait que le père ait maltraité l'enfant ou se soit montré violent envers la mère et il n'était pas établi que le retour serait contraire à l'intérêt de l'enfant.
Le Tribunal a rejeté les arguments de la mère fondés sur le fait qu'elle et l'enfant seraient séparées, notant que la Convention de La Haye prévoyait non pas le retour de l'enfant auprès du parent demandeur, mais son retour dans l'État où il se trouvait avant d'être déplacé. Il a estimé que l'argument de la mère, qui expliquait qu'il lui était impossible de rentrer en Italie car elle risquait d'y être arrêtée, n'était pas pertinent, puisque les autorités italiennes pouvaient dans tous les cas avoir recours à un mandat d'arrêt européen si elles souhaitaient vraiment obtenir son extradition.
Le 12 décembre 2011, la Cour d'appel de Tartu a confirmé la décision rendue en première instance, soulignant qu'en vertu de la Convention de La Haye, assurer un retour rapide de l'enfant dans l'État de sa résidence habituelle est réputé être conforme à son intérêt supérieur. La Cour d'appel en a conclu que le retour de l'enfant n'impliquerait pas nécessairement de la séparer de sa mère et que l'enfant ne serait donc pas placée dans une situation intolérable.
Les preuves apportées par la mère, dont le Tribunal n'a pas tenu compte en première instance, n'attestaient pas de façon incontestable que le père avait maltraité l'enfant. Le Tribunal a estimé que les griefs mutuels des parents étaient révélateurs de leurs relations tendues, mais ne prouvaient pas l'existence de motifs permettant de refuser d'ordonner le retour de l'enfant en vertu de l'article 13(1)(b).
En février 2012, la Cour suprême a refusé d'étudier l'affaire. Le 29 février 2012, la mère a reçu une notification d'huissier lui indiquant que l'enfant devait être ramenée en Italie sous 10 jours. Le 2 mars 2012, une audience s'est tenue devant le Tribunal pour mineurs de Milan (Italie), audience à laquelle mère et enfant ont assisté.
Le 6 mars 2012, la mère et l'enfant ont saisi la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (CourEDH) d'une requête ; se fondant sur les articles 3, 6(1), 8 et 14 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme (CEDH), elles ont affirmé que la décision des tribunaux estoniens ayant ordonné le retour de l'enfant en Italie constituait une violation du droit international et était contraire à la pratique de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (Neulinger et Shuruk c. Suisse (Grande Chambre), Requête No 41615/07 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1323] ; Raban c. Roumanie, Requête No. 25437/08 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1330] ; Šneersone et Kampanella c. Italie, Requête No. 14737/09 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1152] et X. c. Lettonie, Requête No 27853/09 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1146].
La Cour a exercé son pouvoir de qualification pour juger que les griefs des demandeurs devaient être examinés au regard de l'article 8 de la CEDH.
La requête faisant valoir que la décision des tribunaux estoniens en faveur d'un retour en Italie constituait une violation du droit international et était contraire à la pratique de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a été déclarée irrecevable.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 25437
 v. 
 Application No. 14737
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 39388
 v. 
 Application No. 26755