International Child Abduction to Romania: The Hague Return Procedure

When a child is wrongfully removed to or retained in Romania, the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction may provide a mechanism for securing the child’s prompt return to the State of habitual residence.

These proceedings are urgent, but technically demanding. The first steps must be chosen carefully, particularly where there is a risk that the child may be taken from Romania to a third country before the return application is determined.

This article explains the principal stages of an incoming Hague return case in Romania. It provides general information only; each case requires an individual assessment.

What a Hague return case does—and does not—decide

The Convention protects children from the harmful effects of wrongful cross-border removal or retention and seeks their prompt return to the State of habitual residence, whose authorities can determine the merits of parental responsibility.

It is not a procedure for deciding final custody or which parent is better placed to care for the child. The Romanian return court does not ordinarily determine the child’s long-term home, finally allocate parental responsibility or establish a permanent contact programme. Under Article 19, a return decision is not a custody determination.

When the Convention applies

The Convention may apply where:

• the child was habitually resident in another Contracting State immediately before the alleged removal or retention;

• the removal or retention breached rights of custody under the law of that State;

• those rights were actually exercised, jointly or alone, or would have been exercised but for the removal or retention;

• the child is under 16; and

• the Convention was in force between Romania and the other State at the relevant time.

It is insufficient merely to confirm that both countries appear on a list of Contracting States. Where accession and acceptance are relevant, the bilateral entry into force must be verified.

Habitual residence is a factual and legal concept. Citizenship, formal registration or an address in an official document is not decisive. The court examines the child’s actual circumstances before the wrongful act, including the stability and duration of residence, family and social integration, education and medical care and, depending on age, the intentions and conduct of those exercising parental responsibility.

Rights of custody may arise by operation of law, from a judicial or administrative decision, or from an agreement having legal effect. A pre-existing custody order is therefore not invariably required.

The legal framework in Romania

Incoming applications are governed principally by:

• the 1980 Hague Convention;

• Romanian Law no. 369/2004 on the application of the Convention, as republished;

• the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure and child-protection legislation, where applicable; and

• Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (“Brussels IIb”), where the child was wrongfully removed or retained between EU Member States bound by it.

For intra-EU cases, Articles 22–29 and Chapter VI of Brussels IIb supplement the Convention. They contain important rules on expedition, the child’s opportunity to express views, alternative dispute resolution, protective measures, return decisions and enforcement, and the procedure following certain refusals to return.

Which Romanian court has jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction is centralised in Bucharest. Under Law no. 369/2004 and the present judicial organisation, incoming return applications are handled by the Bucharest Tribunal, through its specialised family and minors jurisdiction.

The application is not filed with the local tribunal where the child happens to be found. Filing before the wrong court can cause precisely the delay that the Convention seeks to avoid. Recourse against the first-instance decision is determined by the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

How can an application be initiated?

An applicant may use the Central Authority channel or apply directly to the competent Romanian court, personally or through chosen Romanian counsel.

Romania’s Central Authority is the Ministry of Justice. An application may be sent to it directly or transmitted through the requesting State’s Central Authority. The Romanian Central Authority verifies whether it contains the information required by Article 8 and may request missing material.

Where the statutory conditions are met, Romanian law provides free legal assistance for the return proceedings irrespective of the applicant’s financial position. On request, the Romanian Central Authority facilitates the appointment of a lawyer through the Bucharest Bar. The applicant remains free to instruct a lawyer of choice and apply directly.

The best route depends on urgency and complexity. Duplicate proceedings must be avoided, and all actors should be informed of any application already filed.

Immediate action and the risk of further removal

The priorities are to establish the child’s location, preserve reliable evidence and commence the correct proceedings without delay. Relevant material may include:

• communications about the purpose and agreed duration of travel;

• objections to non-return;

• travel information lawfully available to the applicant;

• school, nursery and medical records;

• evidence of the child’s home and daily life before removal;

• decisions or agreements concerning parental responsibility;

• material explaining the law of the State of habitual residence; and

• concrete information suggesting an onward removal.

If there is a risk that the child may be taken from Romania to a third country, it must be presented immediately and specifically to the Hague court. Under Article 12 of Law no. 369/2004, once return proceedings are pending, the court may order protective measures. Where justified reasons exist to fear that the child will be taken outside Romania to evade the proceedings, the court orders the surrender of the child’s passport or other travel document. The order is not subject to challenge and is communicated to the relevant Romanian passport or immigration authority.

Every known nationality, passport and potential travel document should be disclosed. Surrender of one passport may not eliminate the risk if the child can travel on another.

Why a criminal complaint is not a standard recommendation

A criminal complaint should not be presented as an automatic or generally recommended first step. Although particular facts may potentially fall within a provision of Romanian criminal law, in practice the police and prosecuting authorities may regard the matter primarily as one governed by the specific civil, family-law and Hague mechanisms.

A complaint does not commence return proceedings, replace an application to the competent court or necessarily restrict the child’s travel. It may escalate the parental conflict and complicate efforts to secure a safe, voluntary return. Crucially, it should never be assumed that filing a complaint will prevent the child from being removed onward to another country.

The appropriate first response is normally to assess and commence the specific civil return procedure and request the protective measures legally available from the competent court. Criminal-law action should be considered separately, only after analysing the facts, the elements of any possible offence and the likely practical consequences.

Documents and evidence

A Romanian application will usually include, as applicable:

• the Hague application form or a reasoned court application;

• identifying information for the child, applicant and respondent;

• the child’s date of birth;

• a precise chronology of removal or retention;

• the legal and factual basis of wrongfulness;

• evidence of habitual residence;

• legislation, decisions, agreements or other material establishing rights of custody;

• evidence that those rights were exercised or would have been exercised;

• available information about the child’s location; and

• material relevant to any foreseeable Convention defence.

An Article 15 determination from the State of habitual residence is not a universal prerequisite. The Romanian court may request one where useful and available under the relevant foreign law.

Translations, legalisation and apostilles

Romanian translations will generally be needed so that the court can understand foreign-language material. The appropriate form of translation should be confirmed for the individual filing.

It is incorrect, however, to state that all foreign documents must be apostilled. Article 23 of the Convention excludes legalisation and similar formalities. Law no. 369/2004 likewise provides that documents issued by competent public authorities of the requesting State are valid before the Romanian court without further legalisation or similar formality.

An apostille may be relevant if a document is used for a separate purpose outside the Hague proceedings, but it is not a blanket condition for admitting Hague materials.

Proceedings before the Bucharest Tribunal

Return applications must be heard urgently and with priority. The respondent is summoned, the public prosecutor’s participation is mandatory, and a statement of defence is not compulsory. Hearing dates may not be more than two weeks apart.

The court examines habitual residence, the source and exercise of custody rights, whether and when removal or retention became wrongful, whether the Convention was in force between the States and whether a limited ground for refusal has been established.

Evidence ordinarily begins with documents and, where applicable, hearing the child. Other evidence may be taken if necessary. The court may consider directly the relevant foreign law and judicial or administrative decisions without a separate recognition procedure, and may cooperate with authorities in the State of habitual residence directly or through the Romanian Central Authority.

The child’s right to be heard

Under Romanian law, the child has the right to be heard. Hearing a child aged 10 or over is mandatory. A younger child may also be heard if necessary, and any child may request to be heard; refusal must be reasoned.

Views are assessed according to age and maturity. Hearing the child does not transfer responsibility for the outcome to the child, and a preference for one parent or country is not automatically an objection engaging Article 13.

In intra-EU cases, Brussels IIb also requires a genuine and effective opportunity for the child to express views, subject to age and maturity.

Limited grounds for refusing return

The Convention permits refusal in limited circumstances, including where:

• the applicant was not actually exercising custody rights;

• the applicant consented to or later acquiesced in the removal or retention;

• return creates a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation;

• a sufficiently mature child objects to return;

• proceedings began more than one year after the wrongful act and the child is now settled; or

• return would breach the requested State’s fundamental principles concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms, within the narrow scope of Article 20.

These exceptions are not a general welfare or custody assessment. Their burden and evidential requirements depend on the defence and legal framework.

In intra-EU cases, return may not be refused under Article 13(1)(b) if adequate arrangements have been made to secure the child’s protection after return. Brussels IIb also governs the steps following certain non-return decisions.

The one-year period

Where judicial or administrative proceedings commence less than one year after the wrongful removal or retention, Article 12 directs prompt return, subject to the limited exceptions.

After one year, return must still be ordered unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled. Expiry of one year does not automatically defeat the application, while filing within one year does not remove the need to prove wrongfulness and answer any defence.

The date on which a retention became wrongful can itself be disputed and should be identified from any consent, the agreed duration of travel, return demands and the parties’ conduct.

Decision and recourse

If wrongfulness is established and no refusal ground applies, the court orders return to the country of habitual residence—not necessarily a transfer of long-term custody to the applicant.

The court sets a period for voluntary compliance of no more than two weeks from communication. It may order delivery of the child’s travel document, require cooperation in obtaining one or substitute the respondent’s consent, and authorise the applicant or a representative to collect the child if voluntary compliance is refused. A civil fine may be imposed within the statutory limits.

The first-instance judgment is subject to recourse before the Bucharest Court of Appeal within 10 days of communication. Under Law no. 369/2004, recourse suspends enforcement. The accelerated drafting and communication periods in the statute also apply.

For intra-EU cases, Brussels IIb must additionally be considered, including expedition and the circumstances in which a return decision may be declared provisionally enforceable notwithstanding a challenge where the child’s best interests require earlier return.

Enforcement

If return is not voluntary within the period fixed, the interested party informs the court. Any civil fine may be enforced through the statutory mechanism.

Compulsory enforcement is initiated through a Romanian bailiff under Law no. 369/2004 and the special Code of Civil Procedure provisions concerning minors. It is inaccurate to describe this as the police simply taking or escorting the child.

The bailiff, child-protection authorities and, where legally required, prosecutor and police have distinct roles. Safeguards applicable to the child must be respected, including the prohibition on exerting pressure. If the child categorically refuses or displays aversion, the Code provides a special mechanism that may involve psychological counselling before enforcement resumes.

Return logistics—travel documents, collection, flights and necessary protection—should be prepared early. In intra-EU cases, Brussels IIb requires expeditious enforcement. If the order has not been enforced within six weeks from commencement of enforcement, the applicant or Central Authority may request reasons for the delay.

Costs and legal assistance

Generic estimates for Romanian fees, translations, enforcement or travel should not be presented as fixed or typical. Costs depend on the evidence, urgency, defences, recourse and enforcement.

Law no. 369/2004 provides qualifying applicants with free legal assistance for return proceedings irrespective of means through the Central Authority and Bucharest Bar mechanism. It also provides a route to public judicial assistance for the bailiff’s fee where enforcement is initiated by the appointed lawyer.

An applicant choosing private counsel should request a written proposal specifying whether it covers advice, first instance, recourse, protective measures and enforcement. Travel and practical return costs are separate, while allocation of return expenses may be addressed under Article 26.

Practical points

• Act promptly, but on verified information.

• File before the specialised jurisdiction in Bucharest.

• Address onward-removal risk expressly and identify all travel documents.

• Do not confuse return with final custody.

• Prove custody rights under the correct foreign law.

• Do not impose blanket apostille requirements.

• Prepare for possible defences from the outset.

• Treat the child’s hearing carefully and without transferring responsibility to the child.

• Plan enforcement and return logistics early.

• Assess criminal-law action separately; it is neither a substitute for the Hague procedure nor automatically advisable.

Conclusion

An incoming Hague case in Romania requires immediate but carefully targeted action. The application belongs before the specialised jurisdiction of the Bucharest Tribunal and may proceed through the Central Authority system or directly. Where onward removal is genuinely feared, the proper response is to seek the protective measures available within the return proceedings, including surrender of travel documents when the statutory conditions are met.

The case must remain focused on return rather than final custody. In EU cases, the Convention must be read together with Brussels IIb. Evidence, potential defences, protective measures and enforcement should be assessed at the outset because effectiveness depends on both legal accuracy and speed.

Need legal advice?

This article provides general information and does not replace advice on an individual case. For advice concerning international child abduction or proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention in Romania, contact Eniko Fulop at Fulop Lawyers – emails contact@fuloplawyers.com or eniko@fuloplawyers.com.

Principal legal sources

1. HCCH, 1980 Hague Convention

2. HCCH, status table

3. Romanian Law no. 369/2004, republished

4. Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111

5. Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, including the special provisions governing enforcement conc