CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s4009AD62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE32676A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2FB27B1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:13.33pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.12pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sEDD7045C { font-size:12pt; text-transform:none } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s871A718A { width:136.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF TZIOUMAKA v. GREECE (Application no. 31022/20)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Positive obligations • Family life • Non-enforcement of domestic decisions granting custody of two minor children to their mother and requiring the father to return them to her • Domestic authorities’ failure to pursue adequate and timely actions to enforce applicant’s right to the return of her children • By failing to act with diligence, the authorities favoured the children’s integration into their new environment and thus decisively contributed to consolidation of a de facto situation contrary to the applicant’s Art 8 right   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 9 April 2024   FINAL   09/07/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Tzioumaka v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   31022/20) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Greek national, Ms Chrysovalanto Tzioumaka (“the applicant”), on 17 July 2020; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of a decision granting custody of the applicant’s children to her and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision to grant priority to the case under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns non-enforcement of domestic decisions granting custody of two minor children to their mother, the applicant, and requiring the father to return them to her. According to the applicant, the father refused to comply with the above-mentioned decisions and the authorities were not sufficiently active in helping her restore her relationship with the children, despite her relevant requests, including recourse to criminal proceedings against the father of the children. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Didymoteicho Evrou. She was represented by Mr E. Athanasopoulos, a lawyer practising in Patra. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Marioli, and Ms   Z.   Chatzipavlou, Senior Advisor at the State Legal Council. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 5.     The applicant married K.K. in Soufli in December 2011. They had two daughters, E. and G., born in May 2012 and in February 2015 respectively. 6.     In April 2016 the applicant and K.K. were with their two daughters in Soufli to celebrate Easter along with the applicant’s family. K.K., under the pretext that he was taking the children to the playground, took E. and G. away and drove them to his parents’ house in the village of Kolokythas in the Amaliada region. The applicant immediately returned to the house in which the family was residing in Amaliada but any attempt she made to meet the children or contact them by phone was in vain, as K.K. and his parents insulted her and refused to let her approach the children while manifesting aggressive and violent behaviour towards her. Judicial proceedings concerning custody 7 .     The applicant and K.K. lodged applications against each other for interim measures in May 2016 in order to regulate, among other things, custody of the children. By decision no.   28/2016 dated 12 July 2016, delivered by the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance, the applicant’s action to be awarded temporary custody of the children was rejected and the corresponding action of K.K. was granted. The court decided to temporarily award K.K. not only custody of the children, but also the sole exercise of parental responsibility “on account of the great tension between the parties” in order to avoid “the children becoming a source of tension between the two parents”. The domestic court considered that both parents were unfit to raise the children by themselves but that K.K. could be assisted by his parents, who were still young. 8 .     Following a new application for interim measures lodged by the applicant, by decision no. 2/2017 dated 9 January 2017 the modalities of the applicant’s contact with her two children were established. On 29 July 2016, prior to the examination of that application, the applicant alleged that she had tried to see her children but had been beaten by K.K. However, subsequently, in August 2016 she had picked up the children, with the consent of K.K., to spend part of the summer vacation with them and had returned them afterwards, as their father exercised parental responsibility under decision no.   28/2016 of the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance. She then returned to Soufli, where she resided from that time on. 9.     On 13 July 2016 K.K. brought an action against the applicant, requesting that he be assigned permanent and sole parental responsibility, including custody, of their two daughters.   On 15 May 2017 the applicant brought an action against K.K. in the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance, requesting, among other things, that (a) their marriage be dissolved; (b) she be awarded custody of the two children and (c) K.K. pay child support to her in respect of the children. 10.     On 21 September 2018 the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance delivered decision no. 87/2018 in respect of the two above-mentioned actions brought by K.K. and the applicant. By that decision, their marriage was dissolved, the applicant was awarded custody of their two daughters and parental responsibility was awarded to both parents. The domestic court noted that the applicant had made considerable efforts not to be alienated from the children despite the distance and that the eventual refusal of the children to communicate with her had been caused by the neutral attitude of K.K. and the negative attitude of his parents towards her. Moreover, K.K. was ordered, pursuant to Article 950 §§ 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to hand over the children to the applicant; if he did not comply with that order, he would be fined 1,000 euros (EUR), payable to the applicant, and he would be sentenced to one month’s detention. He was further ordered to pay child support in respect of the children. 11.     On 8 October 2018 K.K. lodged an appeal against decision no.   87/2018. On 7 May 2020, by decision no. 195/2020, the Patra Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. The court specifically noted that K.K. was unfit to exercise custody of his two minor daughters, who were in fact being raised by his parents while his presence in their house was only incidental. 12.     On 9 June 2020 the above-mentioned decision of the appellate court in favour of the applicant was served on K.K. along with an order to deliver the children to her on 11 June 2020 at 9 a.m. at the Amaliada police station. 13.     On 10 June 2020 the first executory title ( απόγραφο ) of decision no.   195/2020 of the appellate court was delivered, by which an order was given to all competent bodies to assist in the execution of that title when legally requested. 14.     On 11 June 2020 K.K. did not show up at the Amaliada police station and did not deliver the children to the applicant. 15 .     On 10 May 2021, following a request by the applicant dated 23   April   2021, the first executory title in respect of decision no. 87/2018 of the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance was delivered ordering all competent bodies to assist in the execution of the above-mentioned decision. New civil proceedings following the decisions concerning custody of the children 16.     On 15 June 2020 K.K. submitted a request for interim measures and a provisional order granting him custody of the children, citing a change in circumstances since the date when decision no.   87/2018 had been delivered by the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance. The request for the provisional order was rejected and K.K. withdrew his request for interim measures. 17.     On 22 June 2020 the applicant brought an action in the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance, requesting a provisional order for the removal of parental responsibility from K.K. and that it be awarded exclusively to her. The request for the provisional order was rejected. The main action was adjourned once on 24 September 2020 at the request of K.K., a second time on 11 February 2021 on account of the suspension of trials because of the COVID-19 pandemic and a third time on 14 October 2021, when it was again adjourned at the request of K.K., with the applicant consenting to the proceedings taking place on 12   May 2022. On that date the proceedings were discontinued. 18.     On 25 August 2020 K.K. submitted a new request for interim measures and a provisional order seeking to be granted custody of the children, or alternatively, to have custody granted jointly to him and the applicant, citing a change in circumstances since the date when decision no.   87/2018 of the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance had been delivered. The examination of that request was adjourned seven times following requests by the applicant and K.K. and was ultimately examined on 11   November 2021, when the aforesaid court delivered decision no.   22/2022 rejecting K.K.’s request in substance. It noted that the reason behind the children’s refusal to meet with their mother was that K.K. and his parents had not prepared them for the transition. It also emphasised the applicant’s efforts to stay in touch with her children despite the hostility exhibited by K.K. and his family and the long distance between her residence and the place where her children were residing with her ex-husband. It further noted that the applicant, in a desperate attempt to communicate with her daughters, had even consented to an interim order to defuse the unstable situation that had been created and to put an end to the legal disputes for the sake of her children; however, that did not mean that the applicant had waived her right to custody. 19.     On 9 September 2020 the applicant submitted a request for interim measures and a provisional order for the immediate enforcement of decision no.   87/2018 of the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance and of decision no. 195/2020 of the Patras Court of Appeal, or alternatively for K.K. to be temporarily detained and to be fined EUR 100,000. She also requested that the children be transferred to an educational facility in Didymoticho, where she resided, and that she be able to meet with her children on a daily basis in the presence of a child psychologist until a final decision was delivered. 20.     The request for the provisional order was examined on 10 September 2020 and the judge issued an order defining the place, time and conditions of communication between the applicant and her daughters. More specifically, K.K. was to accompany the children three times per week to the applicant’s temporary home in Amaliada or to a place agreed upon between the parents, stay for thirty minutes and then leave the premises and return later to pick up the children. K.K.’s parents’ house in the village of Kolokythas was identified as the children’s temporary residence. In the event that the children were reluctant to communicate with the applicant, it was up to the parents to determine for how much time K.K. would stay, whereas in the event that the children did not cooperate at all and refused to have any communication, the provisional order would not be considered to have been breached. 21.     As regards the application for interim measures, its examination was postponed several times, either on account of the COVID-19 pandemic or at the request of K.K. or of the two parents jointly and was eventually scheduled to take place on 13 January 2022. On that date the applicant withdrew her application for interim measures. 22 .     As regards the enforcement of the above-mentioned order, on 11   September 2020 both the applicant and K.K. informed the police that K.K. had visited the applicant with their children. However, the children had started crying and refused to go with her, so K.K. had returned them to his home after spending three minutes on the premises. On 22 September 2020 K.K. informed the police that he had visited the applicant with their children on 18 September, 20 September and 22 September 2020, but that she had not been present in her temporary home. When the police requested information from the applicant regarding the above-mentioned incidents, she stated that K.K. had refused to deliver the children to her on those dates even though she had been in her home. She also stated that she had left Amaliada to return to Soufli on 2 October 2020. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST K.K. 23 .     On 11 June 2020 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against K.K., as, on that day, he had not delivered their minor children, who lived with him, to her as was required pursuant to decision no. 87/2018 of the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance and as confirmed by decision no.   195/2020 of the Patra Court of Appeal. The next day she lodged an additional complaint against G.K. and E.T., the parents of K.K., and on 30   June 2020 she lodged another criminal complaint against I.K., the brother of K.K., and his wife A.S. for assisting K.K. in not complying with the order to deliver their children to her. 24 .     On 12 June, 23 June and 30 June 2020 searches of K.K.’s residence were conducted by police officers in the presence of a judge in order to locate the children, without success. On those dates respectively G.K., the father of K.K., E.T., the mother of K.K., and K.K. were arrested under an expedited procedure ( αυτόφωρη διαδικασία ) and brought before the Public Prosecutor of the Amaliada Court of First Instance for the offence of kidnapping a minor, in breach of Article 324 of the Criminal Code. 25.     On 8 October 2020 K.K. was arrested again in his residence and charged with the offence of kidnapping a minor, as were his parents and his brother, who were not arrested, because on that date they had all jointly obstructed the applicant from picking up her children from their schools, even though K.K. was to have already delivered them to her. 26 .     On the same day, further searches were conducted at K.K.’s residence, his business and his brother’s residence in the presence of a judge in order to find the children and deliver them to their mother, without success. 27 .     Following the lodging of several criminal complaints by the applicant, the files were merged, and criminal charges were brought against K.K. and his relatives for the offence of kidnapping a minor and an investigation was conducted. The file was submitted to the Amaliada Council of Misdemeanour Judges, which on 4 June 2021 issued order no.   35/2021 by which K.K. was referred for trial in the Patras Three-member Court of Appeal for Felonies in respect of the offence of kidnapping a minor under 14 years of age by omission concurrently and continuously. His relatives were charged with abetting the commission of the above-mentioned offence. According to the order, the kidnapping of the children had not taken place by way of removing them from their mother’s care, as, at the time, under decision no. 195/2020 of the Patras Court of Appeal, they had legally been in their father’s custody pursuant to decision no.   28/2016 on interim measures. Nevertheless, the kidnapping had taken place by omission, as K.K. had had a specific legal obligation to deliver his children to their mother pursuant to decision no.   195/2020 of the Patras Court of Appeal, which had rejected K.K.’s appeal. K.K.’s obligation had begun not when the latter decision was delivered or served on him, but on 11 June 2020, the day that the applicant had stated was the date on which K.K. should have voluntarily complied with the content of decision no. 87/2018 of the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance in respect of the delivery of the children. 28.     Two parallel sets of proceedings concerning the offence of abduction were pending before the domestic courts. As regards K.K.’s charge with the offence of abduction as misdemeanour, the hearing was adjourned multiple times; the last known date to the Court for which it was scheduled was 16   January 2024. As regards the offence of abduction as felony with which K.K., his parents and his sister-in-law were charged, the hearing was adjourned on multiple occasions; the last date known to the Court for which it was scheduled was 15 November 2023 before the Patras Court of Appeal. 29.     Other criminal proceedings were initiated against K.K. and a witness, L.T., who had testified under oath for the purposes of K.K.’s interim measures request against the applicant concerning the temporary awarding of custody of the two children to him, that he had an affair with the applicant. By decision 67/2023 of the Three-Member Court of Amaliada of L.T. was convicted of perjury and K.K. of instigating the perjury. REQUESTS TO THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 30.     On 9 September 2020 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she complained that the police had not managed to track down K.K. and his accomplices and to deliver their children to her. She pointed to the domestic decision awarding her custody rights and the fact that she had submitted requests for assistance to the police and had lodged criminal complaints against K.K. and his family. She further noted that the village in which K.K. and his parents were residing had only eighty residents, who had repeatedly seen her children, but the police had refused to assist her. Lastly, she complained that K.K. had harassed her by continuously submitting requests for interim measures in his attempt to breach the res judicata effect of decision no. 87/2018 of the Amaliada One-Member Court of First Instance. 31.     On 16 September 2020 the applicant submitted a request to the Public Prosecutor of the Amaliada Court of First Instance, seeking assistance for the enforcement of decision no. 195/2020 of the Patras Court of Appeal. She mentioned that K.K. had been harassing her by submitting consecutive requests for interim measures, which he later withdrew. She lastly stated that the Amaliada police had not offered her sufficient assistance in recovering her children. She requested that the prosecutor order the police to assist in delivering her children, as, in the past her brother-in-law had beaten her when she had attempted to communicate with her daughters. No further information has been provided concerning that request. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK CIVIL CODE 32.     The relevant domestic law may be found in   Katsikeros v.   Greece (no.   2303/19, § 21, 21 July 2022 ) and   I.S. v. Greece (no. 19165/20, §   51, 23   May 2023). 33.     In addition, the following relevant provisions of the Civil Code (as in force at the time when the domestic decisions were delivered and which was replaced on 16 September 2021 by Law no. 4800/2021) read as follows: Article 1513 Divorce or annulment of a marriage “The exercise of parental responsibility may be entrusted to one of the parents or, if they agree, may at the same time include the designation of the child’s place of residence. The court may decide differently, especially as regards the sharing of responsibility between the parents or assigning it to a third party. In order to reach its decision, the court shall consider the relationships between the child and his parents and his siblings and the agreement that his parents made concerning custody and the management of his property ...” Article 1514 Interruption of cohabitation “The provisions of the previous article shall also apply in cases when the spouses have ceased to live together.” 34.     Following the enactment of Law no. 4800/2021, certain provisions of the Civil Code were replaced as of 16 September 2021. The relevant new provisions read as follows: Article 1511 The awarding and exercise of parental responsibility in accordance with the child’s best interests “1. Any decision taken by the parents relating to the exercise of parental responsibility shall be in the child’s best interests. 2. A court’s decision concerning an award of parental responsibility or the means by which it is exercised shall be in the child’s best interests, which are served primarily by the substantive involvement of both parents in his raising and care and by avoiding the rupture of the child’s relationship with either of the parents. The court’s decision shall take into account factors such as the ability and intention of each of the parents to respect the other’s rights, the parents’ previous behaviour and their compliance with their legal obligations, court decisions, prosecutorial orders and previous arrangements concerning the child, which have been agreed with the other parent. 3. The court’s decision shall also respect the equality between the parents and shall not discriminate, especially on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, race, language, religion, political or other beliefs, nationality, ethnic or social origin or economic status. 4. Depending on the child’s level of maturity, his opinion shall be requested and taken into consideration before any decision is taken which relates to parental responsibility and his best interests.” Article 1518 Custody of a person “Custody of a child shall include, primarily, the raising, supervision, learning and education of the child and the designation of his place of residence ... Every parent has an obligation to protect and reinforce the child’s relationship with the other parent, his siblings and the other parent’s family, especially when the parents do not live together or the other parent is deceased.” Article 1532 Consequences of improper exercise [of parental duties] “If the father or mother fails to carry out the duties imposed on them by their role in the custody of the child or in the administration of his or her property or if they exercise this role in an abusive way or are unable to fulfil it, the court may, if requested by the other parent, the child’s closest relatives or the public prosecutor, order any appropriate measure. Improper exercise of parental responsibility may include, in particular: a. the non-compliance on the part of the parent with the decisions and orders of judicial and prosecutorial authorities that concern the child or with the existing agreement between the parents for the exercise of parental responsibility; b. the rupture of the emotional relationship of the child with the other parent and his family and causing the rupture of the child’s relationship with them in any way; c. the deliberate violation of the conditions of the parents’ agreement or of the court’s decision concerning the child’s contact with the parents with whom he is not residing and the obstruction of contact in any way; d. the improper exercise and deliberate omission of the exercise of the contact rights of the parent who is entitled to it; e. the parent’s refusal to pay the child support that was awarded to the child by the court or was agreed upon by the two parents; f. the conviction of the parents, by a court decision, for domestic violence or offences related to sexual freedom or the financial exploitation of sexual life. In the circumstances mentioned in the previous paragraph, the court may remove, fully or partially, the exercise of parental responsibility and of custody from the parent at fault and award it exclusively to the other parent and it may order any appropriate measure for securing the child’s best interests ...” CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 35 .     The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure read as follows: Article 735 On the personal relationships between spouses and children Relocation “The court shall have the right to order any appropriate interim measure that is required by the circumstances for regulating the relationships between the spouses and the relationships between parents and children. In particular, ... [it can] specify which parent will have temporary parental responsibility, remove parental responsibility from the parents completely or partially and regulate the contact with the child ...” Article 946 Claim for in-person action “1. If the debtor does not fulfil his obligation to proceed to an action that cannot be executed by a third person and its realisation is exclusively dependent on the debtor’s will [to comply], the court shall order him to execute the action and in the event that he does not comply, it may convict him of its own motion and issue a monetary fine of up to EUR   50,000 to the benefit of the creditor and to a term of personal detention of up to one year.” Article 950 Rendition or delivery of a child “1. By a decision ordering the rendition or delivery of a child, the parent who has the child shall be ordered to execute that action and, by the same decision, in the event that the parent does not execute it, the court, of its own motion, may impose a monetary fine of up to EUR 100,000 to the credit of the person requesting the rendition or delivery and a sentence of personal detention for a term of up to one year ... 2. If the right of personal communication of the parent with the child is obstructed, the court which regulates the right of personal communication of the parent with the child, determines the contact schedule and may, for each violation, impose on the person who has obstructed the communication, even of its own motion, a fine of up to EUR 10,000 and personal detention for a term of up to one year. The obstruction of the parent’s right to personal communication with the child is established by a report from a bailiff, who is present at the time designated for communication to begin.” CRIMINAL CODE 36.     Article 232A of the Criminal Code, as in force until 30 June 2019, provided for the punishment of persons who did not comply with a court decision. The new Article 169A of the Criminal Code, as in force since 1   July 2019, provides as follows: “1. Anyone who does not comply with a provisional order or a provision of a civil court decision or prosecutorial order concerning ... the exercise of parental care [or] communication with the child ... shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of up to three years or a fine ...” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 37.     The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the domestic decisions granting her custody of her two minor children had violated her right to family life as provided in Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “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 this 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.” Admissibility The Government’s submissions 38.     The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, even though she had had plenty of remedies available to her. In particular, K.K. had been ordered to deliver the children to her pursuant to decision no. 87/2018 under threat of having a fine of EUR   1,000 imposed on him or personal detention for a term of one month. The applicant could therefore have used the above-mentioned decision as a means of forcing K.K. to comply with the order. While it is true that, according to the Court’s case-law, coercive means such as deprivation of liberty were not considered appropriate in cases of obstruction of a parent’s contact rights with his or her child, in the present case even the monetary fine could be effective so as to avoid having to resort to deprivation of liberty. Moreover, the children had already been well aware of the dispute between their parents concerning their custody, so it could not reasonably be argued that the applicant had not wanted to upset them. 39.     The Government further argued that an application under Article   1532 of the Civil Code for the removal of parental responsibility from K.K. for not complying with the domestic courts’ decisions or his obligations deriving from them could be considered an effective measure under the circumstances. The applicant had lodged an application requesting the removal of K.K.’s parental responsibility on 22 June 2020, which had still been pending at the time when the parties submitted their observations and had later been withdrawn. 40.     Moreover, the Government asserted that the applicant could have submitted a request for interim measures, as she had had a claim for the delivery of her children under Article 1518 of the Civil Code. After lodging her application with the Court, on 9   September 2020 the applicant had submitted a request for interim measures and a provisional order for the immediate enforcement of decisions nos. 87/2018 and 195/2020 or for K.K. to be personally detained and for a fine in the amount of EUR 100,000 to be imposed on him. On 10   September   2020 the duty judge had temporarily defined the modalities concerning the applicant’s contact with her children. The examination in respect of the request for interim measures had been adjourned several times until 13 January 2022, when the applicant had withdrawn her application for interim measures. In the Government’s view, the fact that the applicant had lodged her application with the Court prior to a decision on the above-mentioned request for interim measures rendered her application premature and the fact that she had withdrawn it reinforced the argument that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 41.     The Government further argued that the applicant should have lodged a criminal complaint in respect of a violation of former Article 232A and the new Article 169A of the Criminal Code concerning non-enforcement of domestic decisions; however, she had not used that remedy which had been available to her. 42.     Lastly, the applicant could have lodged an application with the Public Prosecutor of the Amaliada Court of First Instance requesting his assistance, in his capacity as prosecutor in charge of minors, in ordering, inter alia , the conduct of a social or psychiatric report on the children with recommendations by the police that public authorities should provide assistance and support to the family. The prosecutor could have invited the parents to meet to solve their differences and could have made the necessary recommendations. However, the applicant had not reached out to the prosecutor’s office, which had been informed of the relevant developments only from 11 June 2020, when she had lodged her criminal complaints concerning the abduction of her children. 43.     The Government also submitted that the applicant lacked victim status. In particular, on 9 September 2020 she had submitted a request for interim measures and a provisional order. In respect of the latter, she requested that a schedule of contact with her children, without K.K.’s presence but in the presence of a psychologist, be established until a decision on her request for interim measures was delivered or until any other measure the domestic court considered appropriate was ordered. She had not requested, however, a change of the children’s residence. On 10 September 2020 the duty judge had issued a provisional order setting out the way that the applicant should communicate with her daughters and K.K.’s obligations in respect of securing the children’s cooperation in the event that they refused to meet with their mother. The paternal home had been designated as the temporary place of residence of the children.   It follows that the applicant had submitted new requests to the domestic courts, which had regulated her rights in the above-mentioned way; thus, the present application should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae . The applicant’s submissions 44.     The applicant replied that she had exhausted all available domestic remedies and that those proposed by the Government were not effective. In particular, as regards the possibility of the applicant requesting that K.K. be fined EUR 1,000 or be personally detained for one month, the applicant stressed that the above-mentioned amount was not significant. In her application, she stated that she had asked the domestic court to set the amount of the fine for a possible breach of its operative part at EUR 50,000, but it had only imposed a fine of EUR 1,000. Relying on the Court’s judgment in Kuppinger v. Germany (no.   62198/11, § 105, 15 January 2015), she submitted that such a low fine could not have been expected to have a coercive effect on K.K. Moreover, it was clear from the facts that K.K. had been willing to pay much more money in order to keep the children, since he had continued to institute costly legal proceedings, which he had later discontinued, in order to drain the applicant’s finances. She further referred to Ignaccolo-Zenide v.   Romania (no. 31679/96, § 111, ECHR 2000-I), in which the Court held that the request for a daily fine had been ineffective, as it constituted an indirect and exceptional method of execution. 45.     The applicant also argued that the relevant procedure available to a parent who had been awarded custody was very slow and costly. In particular, she would have to request a court official to visit K.K. and ask him to deliver the children. In the event of his refusal, the court official would have to draft a certificate attesting to his refusal to comply. Then she would have to bring an action in the district court and attest to such refusal, which would constitute an enforcement order. On the basis of that order, she would be able to request the enforced execution on K.K.’s property in respect of the fine or his personal detention. In the event that K.K. still did not comply, she would have to restart the entire procedure for enforcement. In any event, such procedure would cost the applicant more than the fine imposed on K.K. and would require a lot of time, which would result in her further alienation from her daughters. Moreover, the above-mentioned procedure would not necessarily lead to the applicant’s reunification with her children, as K.K. could easily pay the fine or leave the children with his relatives, who had proved to be his accomplices thus far while he was in detention. Recourse to criminal law and the possible conviction of K.K. had not proved effective up to that point. As regards personal detention specifically, the applicant would have to pay K.K.’s subsistence while in detention, which would place an even heavier financial burden on her. On top of that, most prisons refused to accept people for personal detention, as, for example, the prison facility near K.K.’s residence, and even if they did, they were continuously overpopulated, with no means to designate a separate wing for people in personal detention (as opposed to criminal offenders). It follows from all of the above, as well as from the absence of any relevant successful examples submitted by the Government, that the procedure for fining K.K. or ordering his personal detention could not be considered an effective remedy. 46.     As regards the second remedy mentioned by the Government, namely the procedure to remove parental responsibility under Article 1532 of the Civil Code, the applicant noted that such procedure was irrelevant to her main complaint, which was that the authorities had not sufficiently assisted her in enforcing the decisions awarding her custody of her two children. She did not ask the Court to substitute for the national authorities as regards the relevant removal of K.K.’s parental responsibility; rather, she focused on the ineffective assistance in the enforcement of the decisions awarding her custody rights. In any event, even if K.K. no longer had parental responsibility, she would still need to go through the lengthy and costly procedure mentioned above in order to enforce it, which would not necessarily lead to her reunification with her children. 47.     Turning to the third remedy suggested by the Government, namely the request for the children’s return, the applicant noted that her request for interim measures dated 9 September 2020 had been a desperate attempt on her part to be at least partially reunited with her children, even during contact hours. Unfortunately, K.K. had never complied with that order either, which had been, in any event, in violation of the res judicata produced by decisions nos.   87/2018 and 195/2020. In view of the fact that she had not succeeded in meeting with her daughters even under the conditions set by the provisional order of 10   September 2020, the applicant had discontinued her request for interim measures; as a result, the relevant provisional order no longer stood. 48.     As regards the fourth remedy mentioned by the Government, the criminal complaint in respect of a violation of Article 232A of the Criminal Code, currently Article 163A of the Criminal Code, the applicant argued that a criminal complaint of any kind could not lead to the enforcement of a civil-law judgment awarding custody of the children to one parent and ordering the other one to return them. K.K.’s conviction would not lead to the applicant’s reunification with her children. An indirect link would render that remedy ineffective, and, moreover, that procedure would be very lengthy, as it took an average of three years to obtain a first-instance conviction. In any event, the applicant had initiated several criminal complaints of child abduction against K.K. and his relatives under Article 234 of the Criminal Code – a much more serious offence which carried a far more severe prison sentence – to no avail. 49.     Furthermore, in respect of the last remedy mentioned by the Government concerning the public prosecutor, the applicant referred to the Government’s observations in Fourkiotis v. Greece (no. 74758/11, §   55, 16   June 2016), in which they argued that the prosecutor had not been competent to deal with the enforcement of the relevant decisions of the courts, but could only order an expert examination by a child psychiatrist, make recommendations to the parents or refer them to public bodies. In the applicant’s view, any application lodged with the prosecutor could not have led to the enforcement of the domestic decisions awarding her custody of her two children. 50.     In any event, the applicant had submitted two requests to the public prosecution authorities: on 9 September 2020 she had lodged an application with the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, complaining about the fact that the police had not tracked down K.K. and his relatives or her children who resided with K.K.’s parents. She had also noted that there had been a decision in force since 2018 awarding her custody which had not been enforced, despite the numerous steps she had taken and despite the fact that the entire population of the village Kolokythas in Amaliada consisted of only eighty people. 51.     Moreover, on 16 September 2020 she had submitted a request to the Prosecutor of Amaliada Court of First Instance in which she complained about K.K.’s behaviour and about the inaction on the part of the police. Nevertheless, she had not received any assistance from the prosecutors. 52.     Turning to the Government’s objection as to the applicant’s victim status, the applicant maintained that she had withdrawn her application for interim measures dated 9 September 2020, which had been a desperate attempt to convince K.K. to allow her to see her children even under those conditions. In any event, any decision awarding her contact rights would have been in violation of the res judicata produced by decision no. 87/2018, which had become final following decision no.   195/2020. The Court’s assessment 53.     The general principles concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies have been summarised in Selmouni v. France ([GC], no.   25803/94, §§   74-77, ECHR 1999-V); Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey ([GC], no.   2334/03, §§   39 ‑ 40, 19 February 2009); Karoussiotis v. Portugal (no. 23205/08, §   57, ECHR 2011 (extracts)); and Vučković and Others v. Serbia ((preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014). (a)    Request to have K.K. fined or personally detained for a term of one month 54.     The Court notes that decision no. 87/2018 included in its operative part that in the event of non-compliance, the applicant could request that K.K. be fined EUR 1,000, or that he be personally detained for one month. In this regard, the relevant objection is similar to the one that the Government referred to in other cases concerning obstruction of a parent’s contact rights based on Article 950 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been considered ineffective by the Court (see Fourkiotis , cited above, §   68). 55.     The Court is of the view that the same considerations apply in the present case which concerns non-enforcement of decisions awarding custody. In particular, as regards the possible fine of EUR 1,000, the Court notes at the outset that the decision of the Amaliada Court of First Instance contains no information on the financial situation of the father. Nevertheless, it cannot but observe that the overall fine of EUR 1,000 appears to be rather at the low end of the spectrum of the relevant provisions which allowed for the imposition of a fine of up to EUR   100,000 (see paragraph 35 above). Moreover, the initiative to initiate proceedings fo