Romania / High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania / no. 14/2025

A v Prosecutor's Office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal (Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara)
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania
Type
Decision
Decision date
15/01/2025
  • Romania / High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania / no. 14/2025

    Key facts of the case:

    The case concerns a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by Belgium for a Romanian citizen. The requested person, A., was involved in a custody battle with B over their son, C, in Belgium. Belgian courts provisionally established that A. is entitled to visiting rights with her son and while exercising these visiting rights she left the country and moved to Romania with her son.

    Belgium prosecutors charged her with not abiding with a court order and issued an EAW which the Romanian executing judicial authority initially accepted. A. appealed before the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. The court accepted the appeal and refused to execute the EAW, citing that extraditing A. would lead to an infringement of her private and family life, prescribed by Article 7 of the Charter.

    The court found that there were clear signs that the child C. was subjected to physical and emotional abuse, exercised by the father B. and if the mother A. were to be surrendered in Belgium than both the child and the mother might be exposed to the father’s abuse. 

    The Court applied Article 7 on family and private life and Article 24 (2) which prescribes that the child's best interests must be a primary consideration in any proceedings relating to children and found that in this specific case it is against the child's best interests for the two to be surrendered in Belgium. 

    Key legal question raised by the court:

    The main legal question is whether an executing judicial authority can refuse an EAW if that authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds for believing that, having regard to the information provided by the person concerned relating to his or her personal situation, the nature of the offence for which that person is prosecuted, the factual context surrounding that EAW, the latter, if surrendered, runs a real risk of breach of their fundamental rights.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Court established that the child's best interests must be a primary consideration in any proceedings relating to children and that if the executing judicial authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds for believing that if surrendered a person and/or their child run a real risk of breach of their fundamental rights, that authority can refuse the EAW.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    Thus, according to the provisions of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the procedure for issuing and executing a European arrest warrant cannot have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, including those mentioned above, namely the right to family life and the best interests of the child, as provided for in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    The High Court notes that Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the right of every person to respect for their private and family life and that, on the other hand, Article 24(2) of the Charter also stipulates that, in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration. Therefore, in this case, it is in the best interests of the minor C. to continue to maintain regular personal relations and direct contact with his mother. 

    Consequently, the High Court considers that, in this case, the execution of the European arrest warrant and surrender of the requested person A. to the issuing judicial authority, would lead to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Astfel, potrivit dispoziţiilor articolul 1 alin. (3) din Decizia-cadru 2002/584, procedura de emitere şi de punere în executare a unui mandat european de arestare nu poate avea ca efect modificarea obligaţiei de respectare a drepturilor fundamentale garantate de convenţia europeană a drepturilor omului, printre care şi cele anterior menţionate, respectiv dreptul la familie şi interesul superior al minorului prevăzute atât de art. 8 din Convenţia europeană pentru drepturile omului cât şi de art. 7 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene.

    Înalta Curte reţine că articolul 7 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene consacră dreptul oricărei persoane la respectarea vieţii sale private şi de familie şi că, pe de altă parte, articolul 24 alin. (2) tot din cartă prevede că, în toate acţiunile referitoare la copii, indiferent dacă sunt realizate de autorităţi publice sau de instituţii private, interesul superior al copilului trebuie să fie considerat primordial, astfel încât, în cauză, interesul superior al minorului C. este să continue să întreţină cu regularitate relaţii personale şi contacte directe cu mama sa.

    În consecinţă, Înalta Curte apreciază că, în cauză, prin punerea în executare a mandatului european de arestare şi predarea persoanei solicitate A. către autoritatea judiciară emitentă s-ar produce încălcarea drepturilor fundamentale garantate de art. 8 CEDO cât şi de art. 7 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene.