CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11997/25 Smbat AVETYAN against Armenia lodged on 19 May 2025 communicated on 19 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the State’s alleged failure to undertake measures falling within its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to enforce the applicant’s parental rights and reunite him with his daughter, as well as the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies. The applicant is the father of a seven-year-old girl, A.A., whose mother is Y.H. The family is ethnically Armenian but resided in the United States until the parents divorced in 2021. On 13 March 2023, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles granted full physical custody of the child (A.A.) to the applicant. On an unspecified date, the child was taken to Armenia, where she was allegedly unlawfully retained by Y.H. In October 2024 Y.H. left the child in the care of her parents, M.M. (the grandmother) and Y.Hov. (grandfather) and travelled to the United States. Upon arrival in the United States, Y.H. was charged with child stealing and custody deprivation in relation to A.A. On 8 October 2024 the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles issued a protective order, requiring her not to abuse or contact the applicant or the child, and to stay away from them. On 12 October 2024 the applicant travelled to Armenia in an effort to assume custody of the child. However, the child’s maternal grandparents did not permit him to take the child into his care. On 16 October 2024 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office, alleging that the child’s maternal grandparents had illegally separated his daughter from him. On 5 November 2024 the Investigative Committee initiated criminal proceedings under Article 241 § 1 of the Criminal Code (illegal separation of a child from a parent). On 12 February 2025 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Yerevan Court, seeking an order requiring M.M. and Y.Hov. to return the child. He also requested a provisional measure for the child to be returned to his care pending the outcome of the proceedings. The Yerevan Court rejected the request for a provisional measure. However, on 31 March 2025, the Civil Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and ordered the grandparents to return the child to the applicant. On 1 April 2025 a bailiff visited the grandparents’ residence to enforce the order of returning the child to the applicant, but M.M. and the child were missing. Y.Hov. claimed he did not know their whereabouts. On the same date, the bailiff decided to place M.M. on the wanted list. On 9 April 2025 the applicant submitted another criminal complaint, inter alia , alleging that the grandparents’ non-compliance with the court order of 31 March 2025 constituted a criminal offence under Article 507 § 1 of the Criminal Code (failure to execute or obstructing the execution of a judicial act). On 13 April 2025 the investigator refused to initiate new criminal proceedings, referring to previous correspondence in which the matter had allegedly been addressed. The applicant complains that the State failed to undertake measures falling within its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to enforce his parental rights and reunite him with his daughter. He also complains that he had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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:   1.     Have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention by taking adequate, swift and effective measures to enforce the applicant’s parental rights and reunite him with his daughter (see Malec v. Poland , no. 28623/12, §§ 66-67, 74 and 78, 28 June 2016; and E.K. v. Latvia , no. 25942/20, §§ 72-77, 13 April 2023)?   2.     Have the authorities taken all measures that could reasonably have been expected of them to establish the child’s whereabouts (see Hromadka and   Hromadkova v. Russia , no. 22909/10, §§ 165-169, 11 December 2014)?   The parties are invited to specify the measures actually taken and indicate whether any additional steps could reasonably have been undertaken but were not (e.g., home visits, inquiries with relatives or institutions).   3.     Does the domestic legal system provide adequate and effective mechanisms, including appropriate sanctions, to ensure compliance with the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in the event of a lack of cooperation or manifestly unlawful behaviour by the persons with whom the child is living (see   Maire v. Portugal , no. 48206/99, §   76, ECHR   2003-VII; Sévère v. Austria , no. 53661/15, § 98, 21 September 2017; and Tzioumaka v. Greece , no. 31022/20, § 86, 9 April 2024)? If so, have these mechanisms been effectively applied in the present case?   The Government are requested to provide information on the investigative measures taken within the criminal proceedings initiated under Article 241 §   1 of the Criminal Code and the grounds for the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings under Article 507 § 1 of the Criminal Code, including a copy of the correspondence referred to in the investigator’s decision of 13 April 2025.   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?