Non-direct implementation of the Hague Convention regarding the return of child violates family life
JUDGMENT
Vilenchik v. Ukraine 3/10/2017 (no. 21267/14)
SUMMARY
Delay of child return to the father. Not immediate application of the procedures laid down in the Hague Convention, so that the return does not serve the interests of the child. Violation of the right to respect for family life.
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Andrew Vilenchik, is a national of the United States of America who was born in 1978 and lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota (USA). The case concerned his complaint that the Ukrainian authorities had refused to order his son’s return to the USA.
Mr Vilenchik had a son with his wife, a Ukrainian national, in 2009. They lived together in Minneapolis until June 2011 when, following a family holiday in Ukraine, his wife and son stayed on and Mr Vilenchik returned to the USA alone. In September 2012 the courts in the USA dissolved the marriage at his request.
In the meantime, in August 2012, Mr Vilenchik had brought proceedings in Ukraine for the return of his son to the USA under the Hague Convention (on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction). In those proceedings the domestic courts ultimately found – in December 2014 – that the child had lived in Ukraine for more than a year before his father submitted a request for his return; that, given the circumstances, the child’s retention in Ukraine could not be regarded as wrongful within the meaning of the Hague Convention and that there were no grounds to make the return order. They considered that the child was entirely settled in Ukraine and his return to the USA would not be in his best interests.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for family life), Mr Vilenchik complained about the domestic courts’ decision refusing to return his son to the USA. He alleged in particular that the domestic courts had failed to properly examine all the circumstances of his case and that the overall length of the proceedings had been excessive.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
No violation of Article 8 – as regards the manner in which Mr Vilenchik’s claim under the Hague Convention was examined on the merits
Violation of Article 8 – as regards the requirement of promptness of the Hague Convention proceedings
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)(echrcaselaw.com editing).
