When enforcement fails within the EU: an eight-year cross-border case without resolution

Introduction

This is a cross-border family and enforcement case between two European Union Member States — Spain and Romania — that has remained unresolved in practice for more than eight years.

It is not a case about the absence of court decisions. It is a case about what happens when court decisions exist, legal remedies are repeatedly used, international mechanisms are triggered, and yet enforcement still does not happen.

Across both jurisdictions, the case has generated an exceptionally high number of proceedings, including Hague Convention enforcement, parallel divorce and custody proceedings, recognition proceedings, penalty proceedings, criminal proceedings, and two applications before the European Court of Human Rights.

The central issue is simple:

final judicial decisions exist, but they have not produced an effective practical outcome within the European Union.

A case inside the European Union

Spain and Romania had already been EU Member States for over 30 and 10 years respectively when the case began, a period during which citizens could reasonably expect effective judicial cooperation between the two.

As such, the case falls within a legal environment built on mutual trust, judicial cooperation, and cross-border recognition of decisions concerning parental responsibility.

In principle, this framework should prevent a family case from becoming fragmented or effectively lost between jurisdictions; in practice, however, the practical burden of pursuing, sustaining and repeatedly restarting enforcement efforts has fallen almost entirely on the left-behind parent.

This case shows how a child-return order, a later custody judgment, repeated enforcement attempts and human-rights proceedings can still fail to restore family life when authorities do not act effectively and in coordination.

The original Hague Convention return order

A central part of the case is a return order issued in Romania in January 2019 under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, following findings concerning the international removal of the children from their habitual residence in Spain.

That decision should have triggered urgent and effective enforcement.

Instead, the enforcement procedure has remained ineffective and, paradoxically, has produced consequences that undermined the restoration of family life for more than eight years.

In 2020–2023, the European Court of Human Rights examined the earlier phase of the case and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the non-enforcement of the return order.

The Court noted that the children’s return to Spain had been ordered in January 2019, yet remained unenforced at least until March 2023, despite active enforcement efforts by the father.

However, that first ECHR judgment has not brought any practical remedy to date: the return decision remains unenforced, and no effective measures have been taken to restore contact or give practical effect to it.

The continuing Strasbourg proceedings

A second application before the European Court of Human Rights is now at its final stage and pending judgment.

It concerns, among other issues, the continuation of the same enforcement failure after the first judgment, the length of the proceedings, the failure to restore family life, and the lack of effective remedies.

The practical problem is that the first ECHR judgment confirmed the violation, but produced no new action whatsoever in the 2019 return-order enforcement.

Paradoxically, even the execution of that first ECHR judgment remains unresolved, despite being under the active supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

Since then, the original return order has remained unenforced, the penalty mechanism has failed in practice, the later Spanish custody judgment has opened a second but blocked enforcement track, and no meaningful parent–child relationship has been restored.

EU-level contact

In addition to national proceedings and Strasbourg proceedings, the left-behind parent established contact with the office of the European Parliament Coordinator on Children’s Rights.

This office was historically known as the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction, and its current mandate still includes guiding parents in cross-border family disputes, including parental child abduction cases.

Initial communication took place and information about the case was provided.

However, this did not result in practical progress.

This does not mean that the office has judicial or enforcement powers. But the lack of practical outcome reinforces the broader problem: even when a case reaches national courts, international courts, enforcement authorities, and EU-level contact points specifically connected to cross-border parental child abduction, the practical reality may still remain unchanged.

That is particularly striking in a case between two EU Member States, where Romania had already been part of the Union for more than a decade when the case began, and where the European Parliament has had a dedicated role addressing international parental child abduction since 1987. Despite this, critical failures still appear in an area that appears, on paper, to be highly regulated at the intersection of civil law, judicial cooperation and human rights.

This case also shows that cross-border parental child abduction is not only a legal issue, but a coordination problem. When each institution acts only within its narrow procedural frame, responsibility becomes fragmented and the child’s family life can disappear between systems that all formally claim to protect it.

Two enforcement tracks, no effective outcome

There are now two separate enforcement tracks.

Both ultimately concern the same practical objective: the children’s return to their habitual residence in Spain and the restoration of the father’s effective parental rights.

Procedurally, however, they remain separate and cannot simply be merged:

• the original Hague Convention return-order enforcement;
• the later enforcement procedure based on the Spanish divorce and custody judgment.

This separation has produced a deeply problematic result.

After the first ECHR judgment, no meaningful action was taken in the original 2019 return-order enforcement. Instead, the father was forced to begin a second enforcement procedure from the beginning, based on the later Spanish custody judgment.

That second procedure did not introduce any real urgency, escalation or corrective mechanism. It repeated the same formal framework that had already proved ineffective, despite years of prior non-enforcement and despite the first ECHR judgment.

In practice, the second enforcement track did not remedy the failure of the first. It created another layer of litigation, further delay and additional burden, while the original return order remained unenforced and without any further effective remedy. This remained the case even after the first ECHR judgment, despite the execution of that judgment being under the active supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

The second procedure is also blocked in practice on two levels: legally, by the Romanian courts’ refusal to recognise the Spanish custody judgment forming its basis; and procedurally, by a counselling stage that stalled through miscommunication, ineffective notification and institutional passivity, leaving responsibility once again shifted back onto the parents rather than resolved by the authorities.

The paradox is that, in the first enforcement procedure, the father was at least able to pass through the formal enforcement stages before the process became trapped in ineffective daily penalties. In the second procedure, initiated after the first ECHR judgment, the process stalled almost immediately at the counselling stage, before reaching any meaningful enforcement action.

The result is a legal paradox: two enforcement procedures exist, both aimed at restoring the same practical reality, yet the later procedure appears even more blocked than the first, and neither has produced an effective outcome.

Parental custody

The Spanish custody judgment did not arise in isolation. It followed years of parallel divorce and custody proceedings in Spain and Romania.

The Romanian proceedings lasted for more than five years before the Romanian courts ultimately concluded that they lacked jurisdiction to decide the divorce and custody case. During that period, the parallel Spanish proceedings were effectively delayed because the mother had filed first, shortly after the removal, and the Spanish court could not proceed until the Romanian courts resolved the jurisdictional issue.

Once that jurisdictional issue was finally resolved in Romania, the Spanish proceedings moved forward and resulted in a final custody judgment.

In January 2024, a Spanish court granted the father exclusive custody, while the mother’s contact was limited to supervised visitation through social services.

That judgment was accompanied by the relevant European certificates intended to support cross-border recognition and enforcement.

In practical terms, this should have clarified the legal position.

Instead, it opened another enforcement track — and another layer of procedural conflict.

In addition, recognition of the Spanish custody judgment was later refused in Romania.

This created a paradoxical situation:

• Romania spent more than five years dealing with divorce and custody proceedings, only to conclude that it had no jurisdiction to decide them;
• the Spanish proceedings, effectively paused during that period, later produced a final custody judgment granting exclusive custody to the father;
• Romania had already been involved in the earlier Hague return-order enforcement, which had also led to a first ECHR judgment finding a violation due to non-enforcement;
• yet the final Spanish custody judgment has not been recognised or given practical effect in Romania;
• in refusing recognition, the Romanian courts treated the matter as lacking urgency by reference to the overall duration of the Spanish proceedings, without accounting for the fact that those proceedings had themselves been delayed by the earlier Romanian jurisdictional dispute, which lasted five years. The Spanish court, in the very judgment under recognition — and therefore a judgment that should have been examined in full — had expressly referred to the prolonged delay in Romania and refused to allow any further delay caused by the mother’s failure to bring the children back, including for the purpose of a psychological assessment in Spain;
• after the refusal of recognition, further custody-related proceedings were again initiated in Romania, adding another layer of delay to a dispute Romanian courts had previously held they lacked jurisdiction to decide.

As a result, a decision issued in one EU Member State has not translated into practical enforcement in another. Worse, there appears to be no consistency between judgments: repeated proceedings over issues already decided are being allowed, and the same jurisdictional loop that delayed the original custody determination appears to be repeating itself.

Penalties without enforcement

The case also shows the limits — and the paradox — of formal penalties when they are not accompanied by effective action.

The father repeatedly sought penalties for non-execution of the return decision, resulting in seven penalty orders over several years.

This was not because financial penalties were an adequate solution, or because they could realistically restore family life. It was because, after exhausting the available procedural steps, penalties remained the only formal mechanism still available within the enforcement procedure.

Failing to use that mechanism could also have exposed the father to the argument that he was not actively pursuing enforcement, especially in the context of repeated objections to enforcement.

However, those penalties did not secure actual enforcement of the return order or restore contact between the father and the children. They became a substitute for enforcement rather than a path toward enforcement.

The result was paradoxical: while the penalties were formally directed against the mother for non-compliance, the children remained physically in her care and were therefore indirectly affected by the financial consequences of sanctions that did not bring them closer to return, contact, or resolution — and, in practice, they have openly blamed the father for the resulting financial pressure.

This is a key part of the story: the only remaining formal remedy did not enforce the return order, did not restore contact, and created consequences that could negatively affect the children while the underlying non-compliance remained unresolved. It also complicated the possibility of future counselling, because the financial pressure became associated with the father, while the only telephone line through which contact had been maintained was later lost.

Repetition instead of escalation

The second enforcement procedure illustrates a broader defect in the system: instead of escalating after years of failed enforcement, the process restarted.

The father was required to go through another formal procedure based on the same practical reality, while the earlier failure remained unresolved.

This was not escalation. It was repetition, and a cascading disregard for existing final decisions.

The role of child-protection authorities

The case also raises serious questions about the role of child-protection authorities.

Authorities did not undertake adequate measures to restore family ties or to verify and remedy the causes of the children’s refusal to meet the father.

There were also situations in which competent authorities interacted with the children’s current environment without properly informing the father, despite his custodial rights.

The problem is made worse by the inconsistent role of the child-protection authorities. At different stages, they appeared to recognise that counselling, monitoring or support was necessary, while later presenting practical or competence-based reasons for not ensuring that such measures were actually implemented.

In the second enforcement procedure, this inconsistency became part of the blockage itself: the process stalled at the counselling stage through miscommunication, ineffective notification, lack of proper notice and institutional passivity, with responsibility for execution once again shifted back onto the conflicted parents rather than resolved by the authorities.

This is important because, in cross-border family enforcement, the issue is not only legal recognition on paper.

The issue is whether institutions responsible for children, enforcement and family contact act in a coordinated way to protect the children’s long-term family life. In this case, the authorities’ involvement repeatedly failed to translate into practical support, effective contact, or enforcement.

Spanish criminal proceedings

A criminal proceeding was initiated in Spain shortly after the initial events.

However, that proceeding has remained effectively inactive for years.

The proceeding appears to have stalled around a judicial request addressed to Romania: the Spanish court appears to be waiting for a response to a request it considers sent, while Romanian authorities have indicated that they never received it.

No verified delivery, effective follow-up, or alternative cooperation route appears to have produced progress.

This part of the case illustrates another aspect of the same problem: when cross-border communication fails, a file can remain formally open while becoming practically inactive.

Access to legal assistance in Spain

The case has also involved practical obstacles in Spain.

After the loss of telephone contact following the Spanish custody decision, the father attempted to report the situation and seek enforcement through different authorities, including the Guardia Civil, local police and the duty court.

The matter was eventually referred back to the original criminal proceedings, where progress again depended on effective legal assistance and procedural action.

By that stage, the father had already carried the financial burden of pursuing enforcement abroad while also defending himself in repeated proceedings initiated to suspend or obstruct enforcement. Non-appearance in those proceedings was not a realistic option, because it could have further weakened his position.

After years of litigation and the loss of stable employment, the father sought legal aid in both Romania and Spain. Legal aid in Romania was refused, while in Spain court-appointed legal assistance was eventually granted for the criminal proceedings.

However, access to that assistance in Spain was delayed for over six months. The initial appointment did not result in effective representation: after repeated attempts to establish contact, the father was informed that the assigned person was no longer practising as a lawyer. A replacement was then requested, and only after that was effective communication with a court-appointed lawyer established.

In a time-sensitive family case, delays or obstructions in access to legal representation create additional procedural harm, especially where the same criminal file had already remained inactive for years.

Practical consequences

The practical consequences are severe.

Despite the return order, despite years of enforcement efforts, despite the Spanish custody judgment, and despite proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, no meaningful parent–child relationship has been restored.

The father has been deprived of family life for more than eight years as a result of repeated failures to enforce judicial decisions.

The children have also been affected.

Before the removal, the family relationship was daily, close and active. It involved private education, international travel, cultural activities, family visits and a multilingual environment. The children spoke several languages, and their daily life in Mallorca was more than ordinary family routine.

The later practical reality is entirely different:

• no regular contact with the father;
• no contact with the extended paternal family;
• loss of previous language ties, with communication now taking place in English rather than in Polish, as it had before the removal;
• only a few brief meetings between the children and their father under official or supervised conditions;
• no effective communication;
• no restored family relationship;
• no meaningful implementation of the custody decision;
• financial penalties that, while formally directed at the mother, affected the children in practice and may have further undermined the possibility of restoring the relationship itself.

This is the human consequence of failed enforcement.

The broader issue

This case illustrates a structural problem inside the European legal area.

The European Union is built on mutual trust between Member States. That trust is supposed to make cross-border justice workable in practice, not merely recognisable on paper.

But in this case, almost every enforcement layer failed to produce a practical result:

• the return order remained unenforced;
• penalty orders did not restore contact or secure return;
• the Spanish custody judgment was not given practical effect in Romania;
• child-protection involvement did not translate into effective counselling, support or restoration of contact;
• criminal proceedings stalled around unverified cross-border communication;
• the left-behind parent was forced to restart procedures instead of seeing existing decisions enforced;
• even the first ECHR judgment has not yet resulted in practical execution.

This is the core issue behind Enforcement Within EU.

The problem is not whether legal instruments exist. They do.

The problem is that, at every level — local, national, cross-border and international — the path from decision to enforcement breaks down.

Instead of producing resolution, enforcement became fragmented, repetitive, financially costly and emotionally exhausting. Each new procedural step confirmed the same obstacle: decisions could be obtained, but making them effective remained the real challenge.

Conclusion

After more than eight years, the central issue is no longer whether courts have issued decisions.

They have.

The issue is whether those decisions mean anything in practice when enforcement depends on fragmented procedures, passive institutions and unverified cooperation between authorities in two EU Member States.

This case raises serious questions:

What is the value of cross-border justice inside the European Union if final decisions can remain unenforced for years, while family life disappears in the meantime?

How much procedural, financial and emotional burden can realistically be placed on the left-behind parent, who is expected to manage parallel proceedings, legal costs, enforcement steps, counselling requirements, travel, translations and repeated procedural restarts across two Member States?

And how many other children in Europe remain without meaningful resolution for years — unable to obtain travel documents, deprived of effective support in restoring contact with the left-behind parent, and in some cases negatively affected by the enforcement procedures themselves — despite living within a Union founded on mutual trust, judicial cooperation, family life and human rights?

Documentation

This article is based on:

• court decisions from Spain and Romania;
• enforcement records;
• materials relating to proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights;
• publicly available ECHR judgments and procedural information;
• procedural correspondence and selected case records.

Documents can be reviewed upon request, subject to privacy protections and redaction of information concerning minors.