You are here:

ECtHR / Application no. 1714/10 / Judgment

Ferrari v Romania

Policy area:
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding Body type:
European Court of Human Rights
Deciding Body:
European Court of Human Rights / Third Section
Decision date:

Key facts of the case:

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 1714/10) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Argentinean national, Mr Adrian Rodolfo Ferrari (“the applicant”), on 21 December 2009.
  2. The applicant was represented by the law firm Dawson Cornwell from London. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  3. On 2 April 2013 the complaint concerning the alleged interference with the applicant’s family life resulting from the application of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) was communicated to the Government under Article 8 of the Convention.

Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:


  1. Declares the complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
  2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
  3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand and five hundred euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

  1. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.