FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF CHABROWSKI v. UKRAINE (Application no. 61680/10)      JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 17 January 2013 FINAL 17/04/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Chabrowski v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ann Power-Forde, Ganna Yudkivska, Helena Jäderblom, Aleš Pejchal, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2012,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 61680/10) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Dariusz Chabrowski (“the applicant”), on 19 October 2010.2. The applicant was represented by Ms B. Woźniak-Szymanek, a lawyer practising in Częstochowa, Poland. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented most recently by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, from the Ministry of Justice. The Polish Government exercised their right of third-party intervention in accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and were represented by their Agent, Mr. J. Wołąsiewicz, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to enforce a judicial decision on returning his abducted child to Poland.4. On 27 September 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.6. On 30 January 1997 the applicant married M., a Polish national. On 20 June 1997 their daughter C. was born.7. In September 2008 M. instituted divorce proceedings in the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie). In the course of those proceedings, on 2 March 2009, the court issued an interim order prohibiting C. from leaving Poland. However, on the same date, M. and C. left Poland for Ukraine. They settled in Ivano-Frankivsk.8. On 21 March 2009 the applicant applied for proceedings to be opened against his wife in Ukraine in order to secure the return of their daughter to Poland in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (“the 1980 Hague Convention”).9. On 1 December 2009 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court found against the applicant.10. On 4 February 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court and ordered the return of C. to Poland. On the same date a writ of execution was issued.11. On 5 February 2010 a bailiff from the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service ordered the writ to be enforced at 8 a.m. on 8 February 2010.12. On 8 February 2010 the bailiff arrived at the address of C.’s great-grandmother and found that C. and M. were not there. Their relatives informed the bailiff that C. and M. had left Ukraine and they had not been told when they would be coming back.13. On 8 February 2010 the applicant asked for a search order for C.14. On 9 February 2010 the bailiff applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court to issue a search order for C. and, if and when she was found, to keep her in a children’s temporary care facility until the applicant arrived from Poland. On 12 February 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court set aside the bailiff’s application and granted him time to rectify some shortcomings in the application.15. On 24 February 2010 the bailiff made another visit to C.’s great‑grandmother and once again found that M. and C. were not present. Their relatives claimed ignorance of their whereabouts but they showed the bailiff a certificate indicating that C. was registered as an outpatient with the City Children’s Hospital.16. On 4 March 2010 the bailiff ordered the compulsory enforcement of the writ of execution for 8 a.m. on 5 March 2010.17. On 05 March 2010 the bailiff visited secondary school no. 3 and found that C. was registered there as a pupil, but was absent that day, possibly because of sickness, as, according to her teacher, the girl was often ill.18. On the same day the bailiff paid a visit to C.’s great-grandmother and found M. and C. absent and their whereabouts unknown.19. On 10 March 2010 M. applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service for suspension of the execution of the judgment of 4 February 2010 on account of C.’s illness.20. On 23 March 2010 the bailiff requested the Chief Registrar of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Children’s Hospital (“the Regional Hospital”) to provide information concerning the treatment C. was receiving as an outpatient at the hospital and whether the interruption of that treatment would cause her health to deteriorate.21. On 25 March 2010 the Regional Hospital reported that C. had been admitted on 10 March 2010 and was receiving treatment in the hospital’s centre for the early medical and social rehabilitation of children with organic diseases of the nervous system. Despite the necessity for the girl to continue being treated, it was felt that an interruption in the treatment would not affect her health adversely.22. On 25 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine delivered a decision ordering cassation proceedings in the applicant’s civil case and the suspension of the enforcement of the judgment of 4 February 2010 until the termination of the cassation proceedings.23. On 9 April 2010 the bailiff suspended the enforcement proceedings in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 25 March 2010.24. On 21 April 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk City police station informed the bailiff that M. had applied for permanent residence in Ukraine.25. On 30 April 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected an appeal by M. and upheld the judgment delivered by the Regional Court of Appeal on 4 February 2010.26. On 19 May 2010 the bailiff resumed the enforcement proceedings.27. On 9 June 2010 the bailiff ordered the compulsory enforcement of the writ of execution for 8.20 a.m. on 16 June 2010.28. On 16 June 2010 the bailiff visited C.’s great-grandmother and once again ascertained that M. and C. were absent. According to C.’s great- grandmother, M. and C. had left on 10 June 2010 for a summer holiday, but she did not know where they were staying.29. On 7 July 2010 the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine informed its regional department in Ivano-Frankivsk that according to the information it had received from the applicant, C. and M. were living in Simferopol at the home of C.’s grandmother. Consequently, on 9 July 2010, the bailiff took a decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings, notice of which (together with the writ of execution) was sent to the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Department of the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service”).30. On 29 July 2010 the bailiff of the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service took the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings in that district.31. According to the applicant, he made numerous requests to the Ukrainian authorities through the Polish Ministry of Justice for the acceleration of the enforcement proceedings and informed them that he had received messages from M. in which she had threatened him and declared that he would never see their daughter again. The Ukrainian authorities had either failed to notify him of the attempts at enforcement that had been made or had done so at such short notice that he could not possibly take part in them. For example, on 3 August 2010 he was notified that an enforcement attempt was planned for 6 August 2010.32. On 9 September 2010 the bailiff visited C.’s grandmother. and found that M. and C. were absent. Allegedly, on 5 September 2010 they had gone back to C.’s great-grandmother in Ivano-Frankivsk. C.’s grandmother further confirmed this in a written statement to the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service.33. On 10 September 2010 the bailiff took the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings and sent the writ of execution back to Ivano‑Frankivsk.34. On 27 September 2010 the bailiff of the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service took the decision to resume enforcement proceedings.35. On 11 October 2010 the bailiff went to the address of C.’s great‑grandmother but nobody answered the door. On the same day the State ordered the compulsory enforcement of the writ of execution for 8 a.m. on 15 October 2010.36. On 15 October 2010 the bailiff went again to C.’s great‑grandmother’s home but to no avail.37. On 26 October 2010 the Częstochowa Court in Poland granted a divorce to the applicant and M. The court further granted the applicant full parental rights over his daughter, while his former wife was granted limited parental rights and was ordered to pay child support.38. On 18 November 2010 the bailiff applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court with a request for a temporary care order to place the applicant’s daughter in a medical or juvenile institution until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland.39. On 7 December 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court set aside the bailiff’s application of 18 November 2010 and granted additional time for the rectification of some shortcomings in the application.40. On 20 December 2010 the bailiff went to the address of C.’s great grandmother but there was no answer.41. On 13 January 2011 the bailiff reapplied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court with a further request for a temporary care order to place the applicant’s daughter in a medical or juvenile institution until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland.42. On 24 January 2011 Ivano-Frankivsk City Court returned the application, declining jurisdiction to deal with the case.43. On 8 February 2011 the bailiff went again to the address of C.’s great-grandmother and again to no avail.44. On 9 February 2011 the bailiff applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal with a request for a temporary care order to place the applicant’s daughter in a medical or juvenile institution until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland.45. On 24 February 2011 the bailiff visited secondary school no. 3 in Ivano-Frankivsk and discovered that C. had left the school on 27 August 2010 because she had moved to Simferopol. On the same day the bailiff visited C.’s great-grandmother and found out that C. had not been resident at that address since the summer of 2010, as she had moved to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.46. On 25 February 2011 the bailiff asked the Ivano-Frankivsk Education Department whether C. was currently attending a school in the Ivano-Frankivsk region.47. On 28 February 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Education Department informed the bailiff that C. was no longer a pupil at any of its educational institutions and that M. had taken C.’s school file away from secondary school no. 3.in August 2010 because she and her daughter were moving to another region.48. On 3 March 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal held a hearing to examine the bailiff’s application of 9 February 2011 for a temporary care order to place C. in a medical or juvenile institution. On 4 March 2011, on instructions from the court, the bailiff requested written consent from a temporary care facility for children to place C. in that facility until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland. The consent was provided that same day.49. On 10 March 2011 the bailiff asked the Ivano-Frankivsk Education Department whether C. was attending school in the Ivano-Frankivsk region at that time.50. On 14 March 2011 the bailiff made enquiries about the place of residence of M. and C. at the Residence Registry at the Ivano-Frankivsk regional police headquarters.51. On 15 March 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal allowed the request of the Ivano-Frankivsk Bailiffs’ Service for C. to be placed in the Ivano-Frankivsk temporary care facility for children while the judgment of 4 February 2010 was enforced.52. On 21 March 2011 the Residence Registry of the Ivano-Frankivsk regional police headquarters reported that M. had been registered as living at the address of her grandmother in Ivano-Frankivsk until 28 December 2005, when she had left for Poland, and C. was registered as living in the Ivano-Frankivsk region.53. On 25 March 2011 the bailiff made another enquiry with the Ivano‑Frankivsk Education Department as to whether C. was attending a school in the Ivano-Frankivsk region at that time. On 29 March 2011 the Department replied in the negative.54. On 30 March 2011 the bailiff went to the address of C.’s great‑grandmother but nobody answered the door. The neighbours alleged that they had not seen C. at that address since the summer of 2010.55. On 8 April 2011 the bailiff made an enquiry with the Simferopol Education Department as to whether C. was attending a school in that city at that time.56. By a letter of 27 April 2011 the Simferopol Education Department reported that the applicant’s daughter was currently attending secondary school no. 12 in Simferopol. This information was further confirmed on 6 May 2011 by the administration of the above-mentioned school.57. Consequently, on 10 May 2011 the bailiff of the Ivano-Frankivsk Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of execution for further enforcement to the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service in Simferopol.58. On 20 May 2011 the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.59. On 26 May 2011 the bailiff visited secondary school no. 12 and found out that, at M.’s request, citing family reasons, C. was temporarily absent from school for the period between 5 May and 15 June 2011.60. On 27 May 2011 the bailiff visited C.’s grandmother in Simferopol and found that M. and C. had left for Ivano-Frankivsk.61. On 31 May 2011 the bailiff in Simferopol asked the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service to check whether M. and C. were now living in Ivano-Frankivsk.62. On 9 June 2011 the bailiff in Ivano-Frankivsk visited C.’s great‑grandmother and were informed that M. and C. had not resided there since the summer of 2010.63. On 15 June 2011 the bailiff in Simferopol made repeated visits to C.’s grandmother but did not find M. or C. at that address.64. On 16 June 2011 the bailiff requested the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Court to issue a search order for M. and C.65. On 20 June 2011 the court ordered a search for M. and sent the decision to the Kyivskiy District police station for enforcement.66. On 23 June 2011 the bailiff in Ivano-Frankivsk visited C.’s great‑grandmother, who said (as was confirmed by some of her neighbours) that M. and C. were in Simferopol.67. On 30 June 2011 the bailiff in Simferopol suspended enforcement proceedings until M. was found and informed the parties of this decision.68. On 1 July 2011 the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Court ordered a search for C. and sent the decision for enforcement to the Kyivskiy District police station.69. On 27 July 2011 C. sent an application to the Acting Head of the Children’s Service of the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Council in which, in accordance with Article 160 § 3 of the Family Code (see paragraph 81 below), she declared her wish to live with her mother at her grandmother’s address in Simferopol.70. On 1 August 2011 and on 12 September 2011 the bailiff enquired at the Kyivskiy District police headquarters as to whether there had been any results of the search for M. and C.71. On 14 September 2011 the bailiff passed on a letter to the Kyivskiy district police headquarters from the Polish Embassy, in which it was claimed that C. might be staying with her grandmother’s neighbours.72. On 12 October 2011 the bailiff enquired at the Kyivskiy district police headquarters as to whether there had been any results of the search for M. and C.73. On 13 October 2011 the Kyivskiy district police headquarters reported to the bailiff that its officers had visited C.’s grandmother and found that C. had been living with her at this address for about a year, during which time she had been studying at Simferopol secondary school no.12. After receiving this information, the bailiff then resumed the enforcement proceedings, on 14 October 2011.74. On 14 October 2011 the bailiff requested the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal for clarification of the further order of execution of the judgment of 4 February 2010, since by the day the enforcement proceedings were due to be resumed C. had attained the age of fourteen and, in accordance with Article 160 § 3 of the Family Code, she then had the right to choose a place of residence at her own discretion. The bailiff suspended the proceedings on that same day until the examination of that request.75. On 17 November 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal examined the bailiff’s request of 14 October 2011 and delivered a decision to reject it.76. On 22 December 2011, with the help of the Polish Embassy, the applicant succeeded in meeting C., but she refused to return to Poland. According to the applicant, wishing to act in the interests of his child and unwilling to use coercion, he then applied for suspension of the enforcement proceedings as C. had expressed a desire to return to Poland at the beginning of the winter holidays.77. On 23 January 2012 the applicant had met with his daughter in the presence of the Polish Consul. C. had refused to return to Poland with her father but had agreed to visit him there during the spring holidays. The same day the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the applicant upon his request as he and his daughter had come to an agreement to communicate voluntarily and C. had consented to visit him in Poland for the spring and summer holidays. As a result of this, the enforcement proceedings, ordered by the judgment of 4 February 2010, were terminated.78. On 16 March 2012 the applicant requested the reopening of the enforcement proceedings as the promises made previously had not been kept.II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICEA.  1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction79. The preamble of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which Ukraine acceded on 1 September 2006 (Law of 11 January 2006 no. 3303-IV on accession of Ukraine to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction), includes the following statement as to its purpose:“ ... 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 ...”80. The relevant provisions of the Hague Convention read as follows: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 the retention; and(b)  at the time of the removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. ...”Article 7“Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective States to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of this Convention.In particular, either directly or through any intermediary, they shall take all appropriate measures(a)  To discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained;(b)  To prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to interested parties by taking or causing to be taken provisional measures;(c)  To secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues;(d)  To exchange, where desirable, information relating to the social background of the child;(e)  To provide information of a general character as to the law of their State in connection with the application of the Convention;(f)  To initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access;(g)  Where the circumstances so require, to provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers;(h)  To provide such administrative arrangements as may be necessary and appropriate to secure the safe return of the child;(i)  To keep each other informed with respect to the operation of this Convention and, as far as possible, to eliminate any obstacles to its application.”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 ..., the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.”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...(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. ...”B. The Ukrainian Family Code 200281. The relevant provision of the Code reads as follows:Article 160The right of parents to determine the child’s place of residence“...3. If the parents live separately, the residence of a child who has reached the age of fourteen shall be determined by the child himself or herself.”C. The Ukrainian Enforcement Proceedings Act of 21 April 1999(Law No. 606-XIV)82. The relevant provisions of the law read as follows:Section 40Declaration of a search“1. In absence of information regarding the place of permanent or temporary residence or whereabouts ... of a child in documents relating to the enforcement proceedings for the return of the child, the State bailiff shall submit an application to the court to order a search for ... the child. ...2. The search for ... the child ... shall be carried out by authorities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs ...The order for the search shall be delivered either at the place of enforcement or the last known place of permanent or temporary residence or whereabouts of the debtor or the location of his or her property, or the place of residence (or whereabouts) of the plaintiff ...”Section 77Enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child“1. During the enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child, the State bailiff shall carry out the enforcement measures with the compulsory participation of the person responsible for bringing up the child and with the cooperation of representatives from the relevant care institutions.2. If necessary, the State bailiff may apply to the court for a temporary order placing the child in an appropriate childcare or medical institution.3. If the debtor hinders the enforcement of the decision on the return of the child, the measures provided for by the law shall be imposed on him or her.”Section 89Responsibility for non-enforcement of a decision, which requires the debtor to perform certain actions, and a decision on reinstatement“1. In case of non-enforcement without good reason within the time-limit established by the State bailiff of a decision that requires the debtor to perform certain actions ... the State bailiff shall take a decision to impose a fine on the debtor - individual in the amount of ten to twenty minimal incomes ... and set a new time-limit.2. In case of repeated non-enforcement by the debtor without good reason, the State bailiff shall by the same procedure impose on him a fine in the double amount and apply to law enforcement agencies with a request (notification) for bringing the debtor to criminal liability under the law.”Section 90Responsibility for non-compliance with lawful requirements of the bailiff and for violation of this Law“1. For violation of this Law, non-compliance with the lawful requirements of the State bailiff ... the responsible persons shall be liable in accordance with the law.2. If there is evidence of a crime in the actions of a person who intentionally impedes the enforcement of judgment or otherwise violates the requirements of enforcement proceedings law, the State bailiff shall draw up a violation report and apply to law enforcement agencies with request (notification) for bringing the person to criminal liability under the law.”The term “debtor” encompasses respondents in all types of enforcement proceedings, including enforcement of judgments on the return of children.D. Instruction on carrying out enforcement measures, approved by the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine of 15 December 1999 No. 74/583. The relevant provisions of the instruction read as follows:8.3. Enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child“8.3.1. During an enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child, the State bailiff shall carry out the enforcement measures with the compulsory participation of the person responsible for bringing up the child and with the cooperation of representatives from the relevant care institutions, and, if necessary, representatives of childcare and educational agencies and health care workers.8.3.2. If necessary, the State bailiff may apply to the court for a temporary order placing the child in an appropriate childcare or medical institution.8.3.3. If it is impossible to determine the whereabouts of the respondent, the child or both, the State bailiff may apply to the court to order a search for the child or the respondent. If the enforcement is hindered by the respondent, the State bailiff may decide to impose a fine on him or her.8.3.4. During the enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child, it is forbidden to apply physical force to the child ...”THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION84. The applicant complained that the inefficiency of the Ukrainian authorities and thus, in particular, their continual failure to enforce the judgment of 4 February 2010 intended to reunite him with his daughter, had violated his right to respect for family life as provided in Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”A. Admissibility85. The respondent Government noted that the present case concerned the enforcement of a judgment in a dispute between two private individuals. They stated that in such a situation the responsibility of the State could extend no further than the involvement of State authorities in enforcement proceedings. They further submitted that Ukrainian legislation provided for the possibility of challenging before the courts the lawfulness of acts and omissions of the State Bailiffs’ Service in enforcement proceedings and of claiming damages. Given that the applicant had failed to challenge any of the bailiffs’ actions before the Ukrainian courts, the respondent Government, referring to the Court’s case-law (see Kukta v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19443/03, 22 November 2005, and Dovgal v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 50726/06, 20 October 2009), took the view that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.86. The applicant did not comment on the Government’s objection to the admissibility of his application.87. The Court notes that the cases referred to by the respondent Government concerned debt recovery proceedings conducted against private parties, while the present case concerns a different type of enforcement proceedings aimed at returning an abducted child to a parent. Therefore, the case-law referred to by the Government cannot be applied automatically in the present case. Given that this is the first case of this type against Ukraine and the Government’s objection is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court joins it to the merits.88. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits1. The parties’ submissions(a)  The applicant89. The applicant maintained that the enforcement proceedings had been opened on 21 March 2009 on the lodging of his application for the return of his daughter, but the Ukrainian courts, in violation of Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention, had not delivered a decision until 1 December 2009. Furthermore, that decision had not been in his favour. It was not until 4 February 2010 that the appellate court had overturned the decision of the first-instance court and had ordered the return of C. to Poland. The applicant further submitted that only in March 2011 had an attempt to find M. and C. been made by the bailiff.90. The applicant further alleged that the enforcement proceedings had been continually unsuccessful because the Ukrainian authorities had notified M. in advance about the enforcement actions, thus giving her the opportunity to avoid them. He submitted that the fact that the authorities had not informed M. of the final enforcement attempt, planned for 22 December 2011, was only due to the intervention of the Polish Consulate.91. He also drew attention to the acknowledgment by the Ukrainian Government of the fact that M. had hindered the enforcement process, Nevertheless, no legal remedies had been pursued against M. in the entire course of the proceedings, although such remedies were provided for by Ukrainian law (Section 77 of the Enforcement Act). In his opinion, the lack of any sanctions imposed on M. had been the cause of her negligent attitude towards the judgment.92. The applicant further disagreed with the Government’s submission that during the two years in which the enforcement proceedings had taken place, the whereabouts of M. and C. had been unknown. He submitted that the bailiffs had known that M. and C. had been in either Ivano-Frankivsk or Simferopol. The bailiffs could therefore have conducted simultaneous proceedings in both places, instead of which they had discontinued the enforcement proceedings in one region, transferring the case to the other and then discontinued them again and transferred the case back again. This had happened three times. The applicant submitted that it was worth noting that the police, although aware of the enforcement proceedings being conducted against M., had failed to intervene when she had applied to them for permanent residence in Ukraine.93. He noted that he had submitted numerous requests to the Ukrainian authorities through the Polish Ministry of Justice for the acceleration of the enforcement proceedings and informed them that he had received messages from M. in which she had threatened him and declared that he would never see their daughter again. He stated that the Ukrainian authorities had either failed to notify him of the attempts at enforcement that had been made or had done so at such short notice that he could not possibly take part in them. He complained that he had only received notification three days in advance of an enforcement attempt planned for 6 August 2010.94. He criticised the bailiffs for their inactivity and their delays in taking action. He claimed that these failures had not simply violated his and his daughter’s family life, but had ruined it completely. He submitted that the rebuilding of his relationship with his daughter had become very difficult, if not impossible. Adapting to new conditions would now be very difficult for C. In his opinion, the conduct of the enforcement process by the Ukrainian authorities had led to a situation in which his young daughter, deprived of contact with her father, had lost her sense of safety, which was indispensable during adolescence.95. In reply to the third party’s comments (see paragraphs 97 to 103 below), the applicant noted that they generally coincided, with his position. However, he argued that it would not be premature for the Court to deliver its decision on the merits of the case. In his opinion, even if the enforcement proceedings reached a successful conclusion, this could not have an impact on the assessment of the actions taken by the State Bailiffs’ Service of Ukraine in the period between 4 February 2010 and January 2012.(b)  The respondent Government96. The respondent Government recognised that the State had a positive obligation to enforce the judgment in question and stated that the bailiffs’ service had repeatedly taken all possible steps to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour as soon as possible. They submitted that the applicant had not challenged any actions or failures to act by the bailiffs before the courts; therefore it could be assumed that he had agreed with them. Furthermore, delays in enforcement had also been caused by the behaviour of the applicant’s ex-wife M. as the applicant himself had agreed when he had mentioned this point in letters he had sent to the Ministry of Justice. For example, M. had failed to appear when summoned to do so and, in moving from one city to another, she had knowingly hindered the enforcement proceedings. Furthermore, M.’s relatives, in particular C.’s grandmother and great-grandmother, had further complicated matters by concealing information about the actual whereabouts of M. and C. All these actions had led to the involvement in the proceedings of the police and the bailiffs’ services from two different regions. The Government concluded that the State authorities had taken all the necessary steps to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour but had been hindered by the behaviour of private parties for whom the Government could not be held responsible.(c)  The third party97. The Polish Government observed that a State’s positive obligations under Article 8 included taking measures to enable parents to be reunited with their children. The decisive issue was therefore whether the national authorities had taken all the measures that could be reasonably demanded of them to facilitate the exercise by a parent of his or her rights of custody, access and parental authority as recognised by the applicable law or granted by a judicial decision.98. They further noted that the above obligation on the national authorities was not absolute and would depend on the circumstances of the particular case. In particular, any obligation to apply coercion in such cases must be limited and the interests and rights of all those involved, and, more particularly, the best interests of the child, should be taken into account. Where contact with the parent might appear to threaten those interests or interfere with those rights, it was for the national authorities to strike a fair balance between them. Furthermore, the positive obligations in this area must be interpreted in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 and the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980.99. The Polish Government further stated that effective respect for family life required that future relations between parent and child be assessed solely in the light of all relevant considerations and not by the mere efflux of time. Therefore, the adequacy of a measure was to be assessed by the swiftness of its implementation. Proceedings concerning the return of an abducted child, including the enforcement of the final decision, required urgent handling as the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for the relationship between the child and the parent who did not live with him or her. They referred to the position of the Polish Supreme Court, which had confirmed that cases of abduction should be dealt with as a matter of urgency.100. The Polish Government acknowledged that there could be instances in which a lack of cooperation on the part of private individuals might render the return of the child difficult. They, therefore, saw a need for States Parties to the 1980 Hague Convention to develop certain measures and procedures within their legal systems in order to ensure the proper implementation of that Convention. Such measures could include facilitating a compromise between the parties concerned and synchronising various actions by different State authorities in enforcement proceedings.101. They underlined that, as regards the present case, the Polish authorities had been cooperative and had fulfilled their obligations under the Hague Convention. Their Ministry of Justice, as well as their Consuls General in Lviv and Sebastopol, had acted with due diligence. The consuls in question had also provided the Government with information about the conduct of the Ukrainian authorities in the enforcement proceedings. Both consuls were unanimous that the execution of the judgment in the present case had been ineffective throughout the two-year period. According to the consul in Simferopol, the Ukrainian authorities had not been able to find C. although they knew which school she had been attending. Furthermore, C.’s place of residence in Simferopol had been established by the Ukrainian authorities after pressure from the Polish Consulate. In the consuls’ opinion, the Ukrainian authorities had been seen to be declaring their full cooperation, good will and commitment while no effective action had actually been taken by them for a significant period of time. The Polish Government also noted the applicant’s criticism of the Ukrainian authorities for the lack of synchronisation of their actions, in that they had established two possible addresses for C. but had checked one after the other, instead of checking both at the same time.102. Lastly, the Polish Government noted that the first successful attempt to execute the judgment of 4 February 2010 had taken place on 23 January 2012, when the applicant had met with his daughter in the presence of the Polish Consul. C. had refused to return to Poland with her father but had agreed to visit him there during the spring holidays.103. The Polish Government concluded that there were grounds to believe that the recent developments might lead to the effective enforcement of the judgment of 4 February 2010 and to the successful restoration of family ties between the applicant and his daughter. They noted the good will on the part of the applicant and his reluctance to traumatise his child with coercive enforcement measures. They also noted that the Ukrainian authorities had stepped up their efforts in January 2012. They considered that it would be premature to decide on the merits of the case as the situation was unpredictable and subject to change, and therefore further developments should be awaited.2. The Court’s assessment104. As the relationship between the applicant and his daughter is one of family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court needs to determine whether there has been a failure to respect the applicant’s family life. The Court reiterates that the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities. There are in addition positive obligations inherent in an effective “respect” for family life. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96 § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 48, ECHR 2003‑V; and Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 58, ECHR 2002‑I).105. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that the State’s positive obligation under Article 8 includes a right for parents to have access to measures which will enable them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action. However, the obligation on the national authorities to take such measures is not absolute, since the reunion of a parent with a child who has lived for some time with the other parent may not be able to take place immediately and may require preparatory measures. Any obligation to apply coercion in this area must be limited since the interests and the rights and freedoms of all concerned must be taken into account, and more particularly the best interests of the child and his or her rights under Article 8. Where contacts with the parent might appear to threaten those interests or interfere with those rights, it is for the national authorities to strike a fair balance between them (see Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 58, 24 April 2003.106. In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the realm of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all the necessary steps to facilitate execution which can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case. In examining whether the failure to enforce a court order amounted to a lack of respect for the applicant’s family life, the Court must strike a fair balance between the interests of all persons concerned and the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law. In cases of this kind the adequacy of a measure is to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation, as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the parent who does not live with him or her (see Sylvester, cited above, §§ 59-60).107. Lastly, the Court considers that the positive obligations which Article 8 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States with respect to reuniting parents with their children must be interpreted in the light of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (see Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 95) and the concept of the child’s “best interests” is also a primary consideration in the context of the procedures provided for in the Hague Convention (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 76, ECHR 2010).108. In the circumstances of the present case the Court notes that it took the Ukrainian courts almost a year to order the return of C. to Poland and almost two years to conduct the first partially successful attempt to enforce the judgment of 4 February 2010, by which the return had been ordered. The Court accepts that the actions of a private individual, M., and her relatives hindered the enforcement proceedings; however, it should be noted that M. and C. had been living in Ukraine quite openly. C. was attending a State secondary school and was an outpatient at a public hospital, and her mother M. had been in contact with the domestic authorities (see paragraphs 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 56 and 69 above). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the bailiffs had an impossible task to perform in tracing their whereabouts and in at least bringing C. into contact with her father. The actions taken by the domestic authorities appeared to be formalistic and uncoordinated, although, according to the respondent Government, these had been the only steps possible for the enforcement of the judgment. The penalty provided by the domestic law for hindering the enforcement procedure is formulated in very general terms and the Government did not argue that the bailiffs could effectively have brought M. and her relatives to account for deliberate obstruction of the enforcement proceedings. At the same time the application of the only clearly formulated penalty against M. for failure to enforce the judgment, namely the fine (see paragraph 82 above), does not appear to be ever considered by the bailiffs, even though it would probably be to no avail until M. could be effectively located and contacted. If the competence of the bailiffs was limited, as the Government maintained, only to the actions that were actually taken by the bailiffs in this case, the applicant could not be reproached for not challenging the bailiffs’ actions in the courts. Furthermore, the Government did not demonstrate in what way any further judicial action by the applicant could have accelerated the enforcement proceedings, nor did they furnish any examples of the domestic case-law applied to that effect in any previous cases of child abduction. Therefore, the Government’s objection as to admissibility must be dismissed.109. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION110. The applicant also complained that the lengthy failure to enforce the judgment ordering the return of his daughter to Poland was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...”A. Admissibility111. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.B. Merits112.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: violation