CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2025

.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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6818/23 Yuri ASLANYAN and Others against Armenia lodged on 31 January 2023 communicated on 15 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first and second applicants (husband and wife) are the third applicant’s parents (father and mother respectively). The third applicant was married to K.A. and lived with her and A.A., their son born in 2017, in Russia. In 2018 the third applicant and K.A. got divorced after which a Russian court granted the third applicant visitation rights in respect of A.A. The applicants claim that before the divorce, the first and second applicants were in constant contact with A.A. On 29 September 2019 K.A. moved to Armenia with A.A. without the third applicant’s consent after which the third applicant applied to the Russian Central Authority under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 (“the Hague Convention”) seeking A.A.’s return. According to the applicants, this application was rejected by an Armenian court on 11 November 2020.   On 27 May 2021 the first and second applicants applied to the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan (“the court”) seeking visitation rights in respect of A.A. The third applicant was involved as a third party. On 8 June 2021 the court applied an interim measure allowing the first and second applicants to visit A.A. in K.A.’s presence from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. every Thursday and Friday of the third week of the month until the resolution of the case. On 1 July 2021 the court issued a writ of execution with respect to the said interim measure and enforcement proceedings were instituted the next day. A number of times between 15 July and 17 December 2021 the first and second applicants  accompanied by an officer from the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”)  tried to meet their grandson but the latter and K.A. were never to be found at K.A.’s indicated address. Hence, the first and second applicants, who would travel from Russia to Armenia every month to specifically meet A.A. according to the court-approved visiting schedule, were unable to meet him. After unsuccessful attempts to locate K.A., on 16 July 2021 the DEJA issued a search warrant, which the police refused to execute because K.A.’s lawyer had stated that she had not left her place of residence. On 15 November 2021 the first and second applicants filed a crime report seeking K.A.’s prosecution for obstructing their meetings with A.A. in breach of a judicial decision. The criminal proceedings instituted in that regard were eventually terminated on the grounds that the court decision of 8 June 2021 was not sufficiently clear since it had not specified the venue of the visits; it could not therefore be said that K.A. had deliberately failed to comply with the decision. The applicants appealed against this decision before the prosecutor, who dismissed their appeal stating that the DEJA should have either immediately ensured the enforcement of the judicial decision in question or should have applied to the court seeking clarification. The first and second applicants requested the court to clarify the decision of 8 June 2021 to specify the venue of meetings with A.A. On 13 April 2022 the court partly granted the first and second applicants’ request and set the venue of their meetings with their grandson at the location to be decided by the DEJA. On 21 June 2022 the first applicant submitted a request to the prosecutor seeking K.A.’s prosecution, which was granted. On 27 June 2022 the third applicant applied to the Prosecutor General of Armenia requesting information concerning his son’s whereabouts. He was informed in reply that on 10 April 2022 K.A. had left Armenia for Moldova together with A.A. On 1 August 2022 the third applicant reported A.A.’s abduction to the Investigative Committee. On 5 October 2022 a national and international search warrant was issued in respect of K.A. On 28 September 2022 the third applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice of Armenia under the Hague Convention seeking A.A.’s return from Moldova. The Ministry of Justice sought assistance from the Moldovan authorities and was informed in reply that K.A. and A.A. had left Moldova on 30 September 2022. The applicants complain of the non-enforcement of the decision of 8 June 2021 authorising meetings with A.A. and the lack of due diligence (inaction) on the part of the DEJA and the law-enforcement authorities which led to A.A. being taken away from the country making it impossible for them to maintain contact with their grandson and son. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the third applicant have the requisite standing to raise complaints in relation to the enforcement of the decision of 8 June 2021 issued by the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities taken all the necessary steps that could be demanded to enforce the domestic court’s decision of 8 June 2021 and to restore and save contact between the applicants and A.A. (see Ribić v. Croatia , no. 27148/12, §§ 92-96, 2 April 2015; Mitovi v. The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia , no. 53565/13, §§54-59, 16 April 2015; and E.K. v. Latvia , no.   25942/20, §§ 72-77, 13 April 2023)?   The parties are requested to inform the Court about any new developments of the case, including about any decisions issued in the scope of the civil proceedings initiated by the first and second applicants, the criminal proceedings against K.A. and the proceedings under the Hague Convention, and to submit copies of the relevant documents.   The applicants are requested to submit copies of the Russian court’s decision granting the third applicant visitation rights and of documents concerning the proceedings under the Hague Convention in Russia. They are further requested to submit a copy of their court application of 27 May 2021 seeking visitation rights in respect of A.A.       APPENDIX   Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Procedure 1 st applicant Yuri ASLANYAN 1962 Novorossiysk Russian 2 nd applicant Margarita ASLANYAN 1962 Novorossiysk Russian   3 rd applicant Tigran ASLANYAN 1988 Novorossiysk Russian Arayik GHAZARYAN Yerevan Priority