Applications lodged by the parent whose child had been abducted by the other parent
II. RELEVANT LAW AND PRACTICE 1. Relevant International Law 31. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“The Hague Convention”) was published in the Polish Official Journal on 25 September 1995. It provides, in so far as relevant: Article 3 “ The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where - a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State. ” Article 11 “ The judicial or administrative authorities of Contracting States shall act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children. If the judicial or administrative authority concerned has not reached a decision within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings, the applicant or the Central Authority of the requested State, on its own initiative or if asked by the Central Authority of the requesting State, shall have the right to request a statement of the reasons for the delay. If a reply is received by the Central Authority of the requested State, that Authority shall transmit the reply to the Central Authority of the requesting State, or to the applicant, as the case may be. ” Article 12 “ Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith. The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment. Where the judicial or administrative authority in the requested State has reason to believe that the child has been taken to another State, it may stay the proceedings or dismiss the application for the return of the child. ” Article 13 “ Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that - (a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or (b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views. In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority of the child ’ s habitual residence. ” Article 14 “ In ascertaining whether there has been a wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take notice directly of the law of, and of judicial or administrative decisions, formally recognised or not in the State of the habitual residence of the child, without recourse to the specific procedures for the proof of that law or for the recognition of foreign decisions which would otherwise be applicable. ” Article 15 “ The judicial or administrative authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to the making of an order for the return of the child, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the State of the habitual residence of the child a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination. ” Article 16 “ After receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child in the sense of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice. ” Article 17 “ The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention. ” Article 19 “ A decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue. ” 2. Explanatory Report to the Hague Convention 32. The most relevant part of the Explanatory Report to the Hague Convention by Elisa Pérez-Vera (hereafter: “the Explanatory Report”) reads as follows: Article 3 – The unlawful nature of removal or retention “71 ... from the Convention ’ s standpoint, the removal of a child by one of the joint holders without the consent of the other, is equally wrongful, and this wrongfulness derives in this particular case, not from some action in breach of a particular law, but from the fact that such action has disregarded the rights of the other parent which are also protected by law, and has interfered with their normal exercise. The Convention ’ s true nature is revealed most clearly in these situations: it is not concerned with establishing the person to whom custody of the child will belong at some point in the future, nor with the situations in which it may prove necessary to modify a decision awarding joint custody on the basis of facts which have subsequently changed. It seeks, more simply, to prevent a later decision on the matter being influenced by a change of circumstances brought about through unilateral action by one of the parties.” Article 17 — The existence of a decision on custody in the requested State “122. The origins of this article clearly demonstrate the end pursued. The First Commission initially adopted a provision which gave absolute priority to the application of the Convention, by making the duty to return the child prevail over any other decision on custody, which had been issued or was likely to be issued in the requested State. At the same time, it accepted the possibility of a reservation allowing the return of the child to be refused, when its return was shown to be incompatible with a decision existing in the State of refuge, prior to the ‘ abduction ’. The current text is therefore the result of a compromise which was reached in order to eliminate a reservation in the Convention, without at the same time reducing the extent of its acceptability to the States. In this way, the original provision was recast by emphasizing that the sole fact that a decision existed would not of itself prevent the return of the child, and by allowing judges to take into consideration the reasons for this decision in coming to a decision themselves on the application for the child ’ s return. 123. The solution contained in this article accords perfectly with the object of the Convention, which is to discourage potential abductors, who will not be able to defend their action by means either of a ‘ dead ’ decision taken prior to the removal but never put into effect, or of a decision obtained subsequently, which will, in the majority of cases, be vitiated by fraud. Consequently, the competent authority of the requested State will have to regard the application for the child ’ s return as proof of the fact that a new factor has been introduced which obliges it to reconsider a decision which has not been put into effect, or which was taken on the basis of exorbitant grounds of jurisdiction, or else failed to have regard to the right of all the parties concerned to state their case. Moreover, since the decision on the return of the child is not concerned with the merits of custody rights, the reasons for the decision which may be taken into consideration are limited to those which concern ‘ the application of the Convention ’. A situation brought about by a decision issued by the authorities of the State of a child ’ s habitual residence prior to its ‘ abduction ’ and which granted custody to the ‘ abductor ’, would normally be resolved by applying article 3 of the Convention, since the existence of a claimed right to custody must be understood in accordance with the law of that State.” 3. Convention No. 34 on Jurisdiction, Applicable law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures For The Protection of Children, prepared within the framework of The Hague Conference on Private International Law 33. Article 7 of this Convention defines wrongful removal of a child as follows: “ (1) In case of wrongful removal or retention of the child, the authorities of the Contracting State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention keep their jurisdiction until the child has acquired a habitual residence in another State, and a) each person, institution or other body having rights of custody has acquiesced in the removal or retention; or b) the child has resided in that other State for a period of at least one year after the person, institution or other body having rights of custody has or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child, no request for return lodged within that period is still pending, and the child is settled in his or her new environment. (2) The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where - a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State. (3) So long as the authorities first mentioned in paragraph 1 keep their jurisdiction, the authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which he or she has been retained can take only such urgent measures under Article 11 as are necessary for the protection of the person or property of the child. ” 4. Relevant Domestic Law 34. The 1964 Code of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) in Article 577 provides as follows: “The custody court can change its decision if the best interests of the person it concerns so require.” 5. Relevant Swiss Law 35. Article 85 of the Federal Act on Private International Law of 18 December 1987, in so far as relevant, reads: “ 1. In matters of child protection by Swiss judicial or administrative authorities applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions or measures are governed by the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures For The Protection of Children. ( ... ) 2. The Swiss judicial or administrative authorities Swiss shall have jurisdiction where protection of a person or property so requires. ” 36. The Federal Act on International Child Abduction and the Hague Conventions on the Protection of Children and Adults of 21 December 2009, provides, in so far as relevant: Art. 1 Federal central authority “ 1. The Federal Office of Justice ("the Office") is the federal central authority in charge of implementing the conventions listed in the preamble. 2. The Office shall perform the tasks set out in the 1980 Hague Convention and the 1980 European Convention. ” Art. 2 Cantonal central authorities “ Each canton shall designate a central authority responsible for implementation of the 1996 and 2000 Hague Conventions. ” Art. 5 Return and best interests of the child “ Under Article 13 paragraph 1 letter b of the 1980 Hague Convention, the return of a child places him or her in an intolerable situation where: a. placement with the parent who filed the application is manifestly not in the child ’ s best interests; b. the abducting parent is not, given all the circumstances, in a position to take care of the child in the State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the abduction or this cannot reasonably be required from this parent; and c. placement in foster care is manifestly not in the child ’ s best interests. ” 6. Relevant Case-Law of Various Jurisdictions on the Hague Convention 37. The Swiss Federal Tribunal has held in a number of cases, with regard to consent and acquiescence, that left behind parent must clearly agree, explicitly or tacitly, to a durable change in the residence of the child. To this end the burden is on the abducting parent to show factual evidence which would lead to such a belief being plausible (see 5.P367/2005; 5.P380/2006; 5P.1999/2006). 38. The High Court of the United Kingdom held, in the case N. v. N. [1995] 1 FLR 107, that abducting parents should not be empowered to defeat the purpose of the Hague Convention by manipulation. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION 39. The applicant complained that there was a breach of his right to respect of family life in that the domestic courts failed to correctly apply the Hague Convention criteria when deciding on his request for a return order. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention. He also claimed under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings under the Hague Convention had been unfair. Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention provide, in so far as relevant: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 8 “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of thi s right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A. Admissibility 40. The Court firstly notes that the complaints raised by the applicant are essentially directed against the merits of the decision, concerning the issue of an alleged international abduction of children. The Court further considers that the main legal issue raised by the application concerned the applicant ’ s right to family life as provided for by Article 8 of the Convention. It therefore considers that its examination should exclusively address the issue raised under Article 8 of the Convention and that therefore it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Raban v. Romania, no. 25437/08, § 23, 26 October 2010) 41. Consequently, the Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The applicant ’ s submissions 42. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had failed to apply the Hague Convention criteria when deciding his request for return of the children. He maintained that the retention of the children was wrongful, as confirmed by the competent Swiss authorities. 43. The applicant further pointed that the proper application of the Hague Convention should have consisted of two stages. First the court should have assessed whether there had been wrongful removal or retention. Secondly, the court should have assessed the positive and negative prerequisites of the return of the children. 44. In the applicant ’ s opinion, in the present case the domestic courts failed to assess the wrongfulness of retention of children in Poland in the light of the law governing the children ’ s habitual place of residence. In addition, they had failed to assess the prerequisites of the return of children based on their own findings in the proceedings regarding the return of the children. Instead the court had based its decision on the custody decision issued in the divorce case. 45. He further argued that when deciding what was in the children ’ s best interest, the Polish courts failed to assess the children ’ s situation in case of their return to Switzerland. 46. He also submitted that the decision refusing the return of his children to Switzerland had been issued under the influence of a practice favouring granting custody to mothers. 2. The Government ’ s submissions 47. The Government submitted that the proceedings at issue had been very complex and of a sensitive nature. Furthermore, they had been important for the applicant as they had concerned close family matters. 48. They further stressed that while the children ’ s “habitual residence” for the purposes of the Hague Convention had been in Switzerland, the applicant had given his consent for the children ’ s journey to Poland from 4 to 20 October 2008, which had rendered Article 3 of the Hague Convention inapplicable. 49. In addition, they stressed that the children remained in Poland on the basis of the interim order of 15 October 2008. Consequently, no wrongful removal or retention took place. 50. The Government further maintained that inapplicability of Article 3 of the Hague Convention had not been the sole argument that had led the national jurisdiction to refuse to order the return of the children. The other arguments repeated by the domestic courts had been the children ’ s best interest and the fact that the children had integrated into their new environment successfully which, in their opinion, had made the exception provided in Article 13 § 1 ( b ) of the Hague Convention applicable. 51. The Government argued that the domestic courts had taken into consideration the parties ’ arguments concerning the consent given by the father to take the children to Poland. Evidence had been obtained from both parties in the proceedings. The courts had examined documents submitted by the parties, expert reports, psychological evaluations of the children and witness testimonies. 52. The Government concluded that there had been no arbitrariness in the way the case was examined. The Kraków Regional Court had given a decision with particular consideration to the principle of the best interest of the children ’ s who at that time had been very well - integrated into their new environment. 3. The Court ’ s assessment 53. The Court notes, firstly, that it is common ground that the relationship between the applicant and his children falls within the sphere of family life under Article 8 of the Convention. 54. The Court reiterates that the mutual enjoyment by parents and children of each other ’ s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life and is protected under Article 8 of the Convention (see Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no.71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005, and Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, §§ 28-29, 27 July 2006). 55. While the essential object of Article 8 of the Convention is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there are in addition positive obligations inherent in an effective “respect” for family life (see, for example, Chabrowski v. Ukraine, no. 61680/10, § 104, 17 January 20 13, with further references). Positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for rights guaranteed by this provision even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individuals ’ rights and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific measures (see, mutatis mutandis, Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 110, ECHR 2007 ‑ I). In this area the decisive issue is whether a fair balance was struck between the competing interests at stake – those of the child, the two parents and public order – within the margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007), bearing in mind, however, that the child ’ s best interests must be the primary consideration (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 95, 26 November 2013). 56. On the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the primary interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life may not be attributed to an action or omission by the respondent State but rather to the actions of the mother, a private party, who has retained the children in Poland ( López Guió v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, § 85, 3 June 2014). 57. It therefore remains to be ascertained whether there were any positive obligations on the part of the respondent State that required to be taken with a view to securing to the applicant his right to respect for his family life and, if so, whether any such positive obligations have been complied with by the respondent State. 58. The Court has held in the past that the State ’ s positive obligations under Article 8 include a right for parents to have access to measures which will enable them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action (see Chabrowski, cited above, § 105). 59. As to the ensuing question whether in discharging its obligations under the Hague Convention Poland has complied with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court finds it opportune, at the outset, to refer to the summary of the general principles applicable in any assessment under the Convention of complaints concerning proceedings under the Hague Convention set out in its recent judgment in the case of X v. Latvia [GC] (cited above, §§ 99-108). 60. In respect of those general principles, the Court would observe, in particular, that the extent of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Convention is limited to matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. Nevertheless, in the area of international child abduction, the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 8 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of the requirements of the Hague Convention and those of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and of the relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties (see X v. Latvia [GC], cited above, § 93, with further references). 61. Under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, the removal or retention of a child is to be considered “wrongful” where it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person under the law of the State in which the child was “habitually resident” immediately before the removal or retention (see paragraph 3 1 above). 62. Furthermore, it is relevant to have regard to the Explanatory Memorandum to this Article, referred in paragraph 32 to above, which emphasizes that “[f] rom the Convention standpoint, the removal of a child by one of the joint holders without the consent of the other, is equally wrongful, and this wrongfulness derives in this particular case, not from some action in breach of a particular law, but from the fact that such action has disregarded the rights of the other parent which are also protected by law and has interfered with their normal exercise.” The Memorandum further explains that the Hague Convention essentially “seeks ( ... ) to prevent a later decision on the matter being influenced by a change of circumstances brought about through unilateral action by one of the parties.” 63. The Court notes that in the present case the children ’ s mother left Switzerland where the children were habitually resident at that time on 4 October 2008 for two-week school holidays. She promised to return with them on 20 October 2008. The applicant had agreed for them leaving Switzerland for that purpose and consented to the travelling dates. Hence, the Court can accept that the children ’ s removal could reasonably be regarded as not being in breach of Article 3 of the Hague Convention and that the domestic courts did not err in law in referring to the applicant ’ s agreement and considering that the removal as such, in the light of that agreement, was not “wrongful” in the sense of the Hague Convention, as explained in the Explanatory Report. 64. However, the same cannot be said of the subsequent “retention” of the children in Poland, quite evidently without the father ’ s consent, after the period of the two-week holiday had expired. The Court cannot overlook that already prior to leaving Switzerland on 4 October 2008 the children ’ s mother had already lodged, on 24 September 2008, a petition to divorce and applied for an interim custody order. She had also informed the court that she would be in Kraków after 4 October 2008. Subsequently, on 15 October 2008 she obtained that order. 65. When in 2009 the courts examined the applicant ’ s request for the children ’ s return under the Hague Convention, they refused to grant it as they considered that there had been no wrongful removal and retention of the children from Switzerland. They reached this conclusion referring to two factors: firstly, to the applicant ’ s prior agreement to the trip to Poland, and secondly, to the interim custody order given by the Polish courts at the mother ’ s request during that trip. It was that order which, in the view of the Polish courts, stripped the children ’ s retention of its wrongful character. However, it was not in dispute either before the domestic courts nor before the Court that prior to their leaving for Poland for what was originally planned as two-week holiday the children had habitual residence in Switzerland. Nor was it disputed that the applicant and M.S. jointly exercised custody rights over them under the law of that state (see paragraphs 6, 8 and 21 above). The Court also attaches weight in this respect to the relevant information contained in the letter of the Swiss Central Authority of 13 March 2009 (see paragraph 21 above). 66. The Court notes that the specific sequence of events in the present case, with the interim custody order of the Polish courts intervening already after the children had left Switzerland, resulted in the courts dealing with the applicants ’ application for their return in such a way as to consider their retention in Poland lawful, regardless of the fact that the applicant had never given his agreement to their permanent stay there and the courts were aware of it. Under the terms of the Hague Convention Hague Convention the wrongfulness of the removal and retention derives from the fact that such action has interfered with the normal exercise of the parental rights of one of their holders under the law of the State where the children previously had their habitual residence (that is, in the present case Switzerland), not under the law of the requested State (that is, in the present case, Poland). Yet, in the present case the Polish courts ignored the law of the previous habitual residence of the children and instead relied on their own law, that is the law of the requested State. In so doing, the Polish courts did not take this aspect of the case into consideration and, as a result of the mother ’ s unilateral act, the applicant was deprived of the protection he could reasonably expect to enjoy under its provisions.” 67. Hence, the provisions of the applicable law were in the present case applied in such a way as to render meaningless the applicant ’ s lack of consent for the children ’ s permanent stay in Poland. 68. The Court further observes that the children ’ s mother applied for an interim order granting her temporary custody for the duration of the divorce proceedings. The Kraków Regional Court granted her application on 15 October 2008. The Court notes that the applicant was neither notified of the mother ’ s application nor informed about the court session at which this application was to be examined. He was therefore not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the matter. As this decision was subsequently heavily relied on by the court dealing with the applicant ’ s request for the children ’ s return lodged under the Hague Convention, the Court accepts that the absence of procedural safeguards at this stage of the proceedings had an incidence on the outcome of the return proceedings (compare and contrast, Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no 14737/09, § 100 -101, 12 July 2011, mutatis mutandis ). 69. It is not the task of this Court to interpret the terms of the Hague Convention or to substitute itself for the national courts in regard to the interpretation of the relevant law applicable within the domestic legal order. However, the Court cannot but conclude that the objective result in the present case is that the legitimate interests of the applicant, as the father of the children, were not taken into account in an adequate or fair manner in the judicial decision-making process in Poland. 70. Furthermore, in matters pertaining to the reunification of children with their parents, the adequacy of a measure is also to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation, such cases requiring urgent handling, as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for the relations between the children and the parent who does not live with them (see, among many other authorities, Iosub Caras v. Romania, no 7198/04, §§ 38, 27 July 2006; Penchevi v. Bulgaria, no. 77818/12, § 58, 10 February 2015 ). The Hague Convention recognises this fact because it provides for a whole series of measures to ensure the immediate return of children removed to or wrongfully retained in any Contracting State. Indeed, Article 11 of the Hague Convention imposes a six-week time-limit for the required decision, failing which the decision body may be requested to give reasons for the delay ( Raw and Others v. France, no. 10131/11, § 83, 7 March 2013; M.A. v. Austria, no. 4097/13, § 109, 15 January 2015). Despite this recognised urgency, in the instant case over six months elapsed from the date on which the first applicant ’ s request for the return of the children was transmitted to the Kraków Court to the date of the final decision. No satisfactory explanation was put forward by the Government for this delay. It follows that the time it took for the courts to adopt the final decision failed to meet the urgency of the situation. 71. Finally, the Court notes that it has not been argued, let alone shown, either in the domestic proceedings or before the Court, that the children ’ s return to Switzerland would have not served their best interest on account of any alleged inappropriate behaviour or wrongdoing of the applicant in his role as a father. 72. Having regard to the circumstances of the case seen as a whole, the Court is of the view that the respondent State failed to secure to the applicant the right to respect for his family life. 73. There has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 74. Lastly, the Court observes that, as the children will soon reach the age of majority, there is no basis for the present judgment to be interpreted as obliging the respondent State to take steps ordering their return to Switzerland. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 75. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 76. The applicant claimed 2,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. He sought compensation for major disruption of his family life and rupture of close bonds with his children he had had before their retention in Poland by their mother and for substantial impact it had on his and his children ’ s lives. 77. He further claimed EUR 10,393 in respect of pecuniary damage. He referred to the costs of travel incurred by him in order to see his children and maintain the emotional ties with them in so far as it was possible in the circumstances between October 2008 and March 2013 until the final decision regarding divorce and custody was made. 78. The Government contested these claims. In respect of non-pecuniary claims it was of the view that they were exorbitant. As to the pecuniary damage the Government were of the view that they were partly unconnected with the violation alleged and partly unsubstantiated. 79. The Court discerns a causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged, given that had the violation not occurred the applicant would not have had to travel to Poland to be with his children during the mentioned period (see Penchevi v. Bulgaria, no. 77818/12, § 83, 10 February 2015). However, on the basis of the documentary evidence before it, and in particular the flight bookings submitted by the applicant and concerning his travels to Cracow, the Court allows this claim only partially, awarding EUR 3,700 in respect of pecuniary damage. 80. However, it awards the applicant EUR 7,800 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. B. Costs and expenses 81. The applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 82. The Government contested the claim. 83. According to the Court ’ s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses. C. Default interest 84. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Having regard to the circumstances of the case seen as a whole, it was of the view that Poland had failed to secure to the applicant the right to respect for his family life. The Court observed in particular that, in matters pertaining to the reunification of children with their parents, the adequacy of a measure is also to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation, such cases requiring urgent handling, as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for the relations between the children and the parent who does not live with them. In the applicant’s case, it found that the time it took for the Polish courts to adopt the final decision had failed to meet the urgency of the situation. Moreover, it had not been argued, let alone shown, either in the domestic proceedings or before the Court, that the children’s return to Switzerland would have not served their best interest.