Communicated on 4 March 2020 Published on 30 March 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10405/17 Ruzanna TER-VARDANYAN against Armenia lodged on 27 January 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ruzanna Ter -Vardanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Yerevan.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

Between 2004 and 2014 the applicant ’ s son and E. were married. During their marriage E. gave birth to two girls and a boy, born respectively on 25 September 2005, 26 August 2008 and 12 January 2011.

According to the applicant, E. did not allow her to see and interact with her grandchildren from their birth.

On 8 June 2009 the applicant lodged a civil claim seeking to establish contact with her granddaughters.

By its decision of 2 April 2010 the Kentron and Nork- Marash District Court of Yerevan (the District Court) partially granted the applicant ’ s claim and established that the applicant could meet her granddaughters on Fridays from 5 to 7 p.m.

The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision arguing, inter alia , that the arrangement made was inconvenient for her due to her working schedule.

On 2 April 2010 the Civil Court of Appeal partially granted the applicant ’ s appeal, concluding that the applicant could visit her granddaughters on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. This decision became final on 26 July 2010.

On 15 September 2010 the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the decision of 2 April 2010.

On 22 April 2013 the applicant lodged another claim seeking to establish contact with her grandson.

By judgment of 10 July 2013 the District Court granted the applicant ’ s claims, allowing her to meet her grandson on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m as well.

No appeal was lodged and this judgment became final on 13 August 2013.

On 20 August 2013 the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 10 July 2013.

According to the applicant, for a certain period of time it was impossible for her to visit her grandchildren according to the schedule set since E. hindered her contact with them. Moreover, E. beat the children in order to forbid them to meet their grandmother.

In such circumstances, the meetings between the applicant and her grandchildren were held in the presence of bailiffs H. and M. Two expert ‑ psychologists also became involved.

On 29 October 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the Head of the Department for Execution of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”) seeking the recusal of bailiff H.M. She argued, inter alia , that H.M. had failed to ensure the implementation of her visiting rights.

It appears that by decision of 5 November 2014 this request was rejected.

On 24 November 2014 the applicant lodged an administrative claim against the DEJA seeking the recusal of bailiff H. and the assignment of supervision of the enforcement proceedings to another bailiff. The applicant submitted, inter alia , that bailiff H. had failed to take all the necessary measures to ensure her meetings with her grandchildren.

On 17 March 2016 the Administrative Court terminated the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, finding that courts of general jurisdiction had had the competence to examine issues concerning recusal of a bailiff. In any event, in the circumstances where the applicant ’ s claim was not aimed at challenging the decision of 5 November 2014, her claim could not be the subject of adjudication in any court.

The applicant appealed.

On 29 December 2016 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 17 March 2016.

On 23 January 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit on 26 April 2017.

The Family Code (in force since 2005)

According to Article 42 § 1, the child has the right to communicate with, inter alia , his/her grandparents. The parents ’ divorce should not affect the rights of the child.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the domestic authorities ’ failure to secure her contact rights with her grandchildren in accordance with the visiting schedule determined by final and binding judicial decisions.

The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective remedies were available to her in respect of her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s right to respect for family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, breached? In particular, did the authorities observe their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to ensure the applicant ’ s contact with her grandchildren (see Manuello and Nevi v. Italy , no. 107/10, §§ 47-60, 20 January 2015; Nistor v. Romania , no. 14565/05, §§ 89-111, 2 November 2010; Bronda v. Italy , no. 22430/93, §§ 51-63, 9 June 1998)?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?