CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 11 October 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 13184/21 Ashot GHAZARYAN against Armenia lodged on 2 March 2021 communicated on 22 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair trial and of his right to respect for his family life by the domestic courts dealing with his request for the return of his son to his habitual place of residence (Russia) in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). On 5 January 2018 the applicant’s wife, A.V., with the applicant’s consent, took their son, aged three at that time, to Armenia. It was agreed that they would return to Russia on 20 January 2018, but later A.V. refused to do so. Upon the applicant’s request of 23 January 2018, on 22 March 2018 the Minister of Justice, acting as the Central Authority within the meaning of the Hague Convention, ordered the return of the child to his habitual place of residence. In the meantime, on 26 February 2018 the applicant lodged a claim with the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan seeking the return of the child. On 14 November 2018 his claim was rejected. On 18 March 2019, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Civil Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered the return of the child. A.V. appealed against that decision. On 23 October 2020 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal and rejected the applicant’s claim. Although it acknowledged that the child’s retention in Armenia by his mother had been wrongful, it found that, with the passage of more than 2 years since the start of the proceedings, the child had already adapted to his new residence and his return would place the boy at grave risk within the meaning of Article   13   (b) of the Hague Convention. The Court of Cassation also acknowledged that the length of the proceedings had been unacceptable from the point of view of compliance with the Hague Convention and explained that the reason for the delay had been the absence at the relevant time of specific rules in the Code of Civil Procedure governing the examination of such claims. The applicant relies on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in the light of the proceedings for returning his son which were concluded by the final decision of the Court of Cassation of 23 October 2020? In particular, were the domestic proceedings in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, G.S. v. Georgia, no. 2361/13, §§ 49 and 63, 21 July 2015)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?