| Applicant name | NIȚĂ |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | ROMANIA |
| Application no. | 1240/21 |
| Date | 16/04/2024 |
| Judges | Faris Vehabović, President, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Sebastian Răduleţu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; relational privacy |
| Keywords | custody; decision-making process |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained that the courts deciding on the second residence order had not taken into account the relevant evidence, thus violating her right to raise her child. Although she relied on Article 1 of the Convention, the complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 |
| Analysis | The Court is not persuaded that the domestic courts attempted to perform a genuine balancing exercise between the best interests of the child and those of the parents, in particular his mother. They did not seriously assess the consequences, including in the long‑term, of the child continuing to live with X and, at least partly because of the latter’s behaviour, being effectively deprived of his mother’s presence in his life. For these reasons, the Court does not consider that the decision‑making process leading to the final decision of 28 July 2020 ( was conducted so as to ensure that all views and interests were duly taken into account. It is thus not satisfied that the said procedure was accompanied by sufficient safeguards. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account. |
| Documents | Judgment |