CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35845/24 Anestis SPYRIDONIDIS against Armenia lodged on 29 November 2024 communicated on 23 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s request for the return of his children, S.Sp. and M.Sp., born in 2013 and 2020 respectively, to their habitual place of residence (Greece) under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). Both children are citizens of Greece. In July 2022 the applicant and his (apparently former) wife, S.S., travelled from Greece to Armenia with the children aiming, as he claims, to return shortly afterwards. In December 2022 S.S. refused to return to Greece or send the children back there. On 26 April 2023 the applicant initiated judicial proceedings seeking the children’s return to Greece under the Hague Convention. The Central Authority under that convention, a third party to the proceedings, stated that there were no grounds to reject the applicant’s request and suggested that the children be returned to Greece. On 6 July 2023 the Kotayk regional court dismissed the applicant’s application. It found that the children’s return to Greece would expose them to a grave risk of psychological harm and would place them in intolerable situation. In so doing the court referred to (i) S.Sp.’s own preference to stay in Armenia as a ten year-old (M.Sp. was not interviewed by the court or experts due to his young age); (ii) an evaluation by an expert from the Custody and Guardianship Body of S.Sp.’s psychological state, according to which he was in closer emotional contact with his mother and was generally feeling more comfortable in Armenia as opposed to Greece; (iii) an expert opinion by a psychological centre submitted by S.S. which stated, inter alia , that S.Sp. lacked emotional contact with the applicant, was feeling frustrated after phone calls with him and that a separation from his mother would expose him to serious psychological stress; (iv) the fact that the children had lived in Greece only for a short period of time (they had lived predominantly in Ukraine), had not fully adapted to the life there and did not speak Greek whilst S.Sp. had fully adapted to the life in Armenia and was fluent in Armenian. The applicant appealed complaining, inter alia , of the use of the opinion by the psychological centre which had been obtained without his participation or knowledge and of the duration of the proceedings in the first instance. On 13 February 2024 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation on 17 July 2024 for lack of merit. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 August 2024. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of the domestic courts’ refusal to order the children’s return based on allegedly erroneous interpretation and application of Article 13 of the Hague Convention, of the use of the psychological centre’s expert opinion that had been obtained in infringement of his procedural rights and of the length of the domestic proceedings. 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 particular:   (a)     was the interpretation and application by the Armenian courts of the exceptions provided for under Article 13 (b) and paragraph 2 of the Hague Convention compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see X v. Latvia , no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, ECHR 2013; G.S. v. Georgia , no.   2361/13, §§ 41-62, 21 July 2015 and Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia , no.   15122/17, §§ 76-105, 18 June 2019)?   (b) were the impugned proceedings conducted expeditiously (see, among other authorities, G.S. v. Georgia , cited above, §§ 63-64, 21 July 2015 and G.N. v. Poland , no. 2171/14, §§ 66-68, 19 July 2016)?