CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 novembre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31207/24 T.K. and M.N. against Georgia lodged on 16 October 2024 communicated on 28 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are T.K. (the first applicant) and her underage son, M.N. (the second applicant, born in 2012). The first applicant is a Georgian national, while her son, the second applicant, is a citizen of Canada. On 21 April 2015 the first applicant initiated divorce and custody proceedings seeking from the court, among other things, to have her address in Georgia designated as her son’s permanent place of residence and to restrict the father’s parental rights, particularly with respect to his taking the second applicant to his permanent place of residence in Canada. The first applicant argued that there was a real risk that the father might abduct their son and fail to return him to Georgia. She also alleged that the father had psychologically and physically abused her. In his counterclaim, the father asked the court, among other things, to establish a contact schedule with his son and to allow him to take his son to Canada regularly. The paternal grandfather filed a separate claim requesting the court to establish a separate contact schedule between him and his grandchild. On 23 March 2018 the Tbilisi City Court partially granted the first applicant’s application, ruling that the second applicant’s place of residence would be with her, and that the father would be permitted to travel abroad, in particular to Canada, with their son only from 2023 onwards, with an obligation to return. The court also established separate contact schedules for the father and the grandfather while in Georgia. The first applicant appealed. In addition to her allegations of physical and psychological abuse, she maintained her fears that the father might abduct their son if permitted to travel to Canada. She also contested the separate contact schedule between the grandfather and the second applicant, clarifying that she was not opposed to the grandfather having a relationship with her son and that, in any case, the grandfather could see her son when he was with his father. On 3 July 2019 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, while upholding the decision of the court of first instance, slightly amended it with regard to the contact schedules for the father and grandfather, as well as the second applicant’s travel to Canada. As for the first applicant’s allegations of violence and the risk of abduction, the appellate court found them to be unsubstantiated. On 31 May 2024 the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the above decision, slightly modifying again the arrangements for the second applicant’s travel to Canada together with his father. The applicants complain under Articles 6, 8, and 14 of the Convention about the outcome and length of the relevant proceedings. They allege that the domestic courts failed to property assess the second applicant’s best interests when permitting the father to take him to Canada. The first applicant also complains about the establishment of a separate contact schedule for the grandfather. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the State’s positive and procedural obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, was the manner in which the relevant proceedings were conducted and the decision subsequently adopted in breach of that Article? Reference is made, in particular, to the following elements:   (i)     the content of the domestic court’s final ruling regarding the grandfather’s contact rights with the second applicant; (ii)     the content of the domestic court’s final ruling regarding the father’s right to take his son to Canada; (iii)     the length of the proceedings.   2.     What measures have been taken with a view to assessing the second applicant’s wishes and his best interests as regards the travel and contact arrangements? Was he given an opportunity to express his own views (see N.Ts. and Others v. Georgia , no. 71776/12, §§ 72 and 74-80, 2 February 2016)?   3.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?