Not available
- 28/08/2025
- Criminal Judgment no. 18
- Other
Case details
Court identification
Other
Any reference identifying the case
Criminal Judgment no. 18
Date of ruling
28/08/2025
Parties involved
Relevant national law applied
Article 379(1) Romanian Criminal Code (Non-compliance with measures concerning the custody of a minor)
Convention provision(s)
Not applicable
Status of decision
Appeal pending
Publication link
Outcome
Pitești Court of Appeal refused the request to recognise and enforce in Romania the Spanish criminal judgment by which the Romanian requested person had been convicted to three years' imprisonment for parental child abduction under Article 225 bis of the Spanish Criminal Code.
Abstract
The case concerns a Romanian request for recognition and execution of a final Spanish criminal judgment sentencing a Romanian parent to three years’ imprisonment for child abduction. According to the foreign judgment, the child had travelled from Spain to Romania during the summer holiday with parental authorisation, but after the holiday the father decided unilaterally not to allow the child to return to Spain, changed her permanent residence to Romania and enrolled her in school there. The child’s mother then filed a criminal complaint in Spain for child abduction.
The Spanish judgment treated child abduction as conduct linked to the wrongful transfer or retention of a child and to the protection of custody rights, in a manner structurally connected to the 1980 Hague Convention. It also held that the later Romanian civil judgment concerning parental responsibility and the child’s residence could produce effects for the future but did not remove the possible criminal character of the earlier unilateral retention in Romania.
The Romanian court examined the request under the legal framework governing recognition and execution of custodial sentences imposed in other EU Member States. It accepted that the foreign offence had, in Romanian law, a possible equivalent in Article 379(1) of the Romanian Criminal Code, since the conduct corresponded to non-compliance with measures concerning the custody of a minor. However, the court also held that, on the facts, the relevant retention of the child had taken place in Romania, which justified refusal of recognition and execution on territorial grounds.
The court further noted that, if the Spanish sentence were adapted to the Romanian penalty rules, the three-year custodial sentence would have to be reduced to the statutory maximum under Article 379(1), namely three months’ imprisonment. Since the convicted person had already spent more time in custody than that adapted maximum, no further custodial sentence would remain to be executed in Romania. On that basis, the court refused recognition and execution of the Spanish judgment.