Not available
- 18/07/2025
- Preliminary Chamber Ruling no. 446
- Other
Case details
Court identification
Other
Any reference identifying the case
Preliminary Chamber Ruling no. 446
Date of ruling
18/07/2025
Parties involved
Parent A v. Parent B
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
Final decision
Publication link
Outcome
The preliminary chamber judge dismissed the complaint as unfounded and maintained the prosecutor’s order closing the case. The court held that the evidence did not support the existence of the specific criminal intent required for Article 379(1) of the Romanian Criminal Code, since the father’s conduct could not be characterised, in the circumstances of the case, as an intentional retention of the children.
Abstract
The case concerned a complaint under Article 379(1) of the Romanian Criminal Code. The mother alleged that the father had refused to allow the children to go with her, despite a Romanian provisional civil judgment that had temporarily established the children’s residence with the mother. The conflict took place against the background of wider Romanian and foreign proceedings, including divorce and custody litigation, allegations of domestic violence, and Hague return proceedings concerning the children’s move from their habitual residence abroad to Romania.
The preliminary chamber judge accepted the prosecutor’s assessment that the reported parent had not acted with the criminal intent required by Article 379(1) of the Romanian Criminal Code. Before the date invoked in the criminal complaint, Bucharest Court of Appeal had allowed the reported parent’s return application under 1980 Hague Convention, ordered the children’s return to their habitual residence abroad, and authorised him, in the event of non-compliance, to take the children personally or through a representative.
The preliminary chamber judge relied on the reasoning of the Hague court. Bucharest Court of Appeal had held that the children’s removal and retention in Romania by the complainant were wrongful under Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention, because their habitual residence had been abroad and the other parent had not consented to the change of residence. It had also recalled that a Hague return order does not decide custody on the merits, but serves to restore the children to their habitual environment so that custody issues may be decided by the authorities of that State.
The criminal court considered that the reported parent acted on the basis of the Hague return decision in his favour and of the finding that the children had been wrongfully brought to Romania. It also noted that the provisional Romanian civil judgment relied on by the complainant could no longer produce the effects claimed by her, particularly after the later civil appellate ruling found that Romanian courts lacked jurisdiction over the parental-responsibility dispute.
The court further held that the numerous documents submitted by the complainant concerning the parties’ wider civil and criminal disputes were not relevant to the specific offence under investigation. The criminal inquiry concerned only whether the conduct complained of amounted to an offence under Article 379(1), not a general reassessment of the parents’ conflict, the custody dispute, or the allegations raised in parallel proceedings.