Published on 16 May 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 30129/21 Petros GHAZARYAN against Armenia lodged on 2 June 2021 communicated on 29 April 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair trial and of his right to respect for his family life by the Armenian courts dealing with his request for the return of his daughter to her habitual place of residence (Germany) under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”).

On 16 October 2019 the applicant’s wife, A.D., with the applicant’s consent, took their daughter, aged two at that time, to Armenia. It was allegedly agreed that they would return to Germany on 10 November 2019, but later A.D. refused to do so.

On 24 February 2020 the applicant lodged a claim with the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan (“the Yerevan Court”) seeking the return of the child. On 2 April 2020 his claim was dismissed. The Yerevan Court found that no evidence had been submitted to prove the fact that the child’s retention in Armenia had been wrongful, that the child’s habitual place of residence had been in Germany and that the applicant had been exercising custody rights. It also found that, even if the applicant had proved those facts, the child’s return would place her at grave risk.

On 21 July 2020 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. The applicant’s further appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation on 2 December 2020.

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 applicant allowed to present his case fully in the Hague Convention proceedings before the Armenian courts (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 102, ECHR 2013)?

(b) was the interpretation and application by the Armenian courts of the exception provided for under Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see X v. Latvia , cited above, §§ 93-108; Maumousseau and Washington v. France , no. 39388/05, § 73, 6 December 2007)?

(c) were the impugned proceedings conducted expeditiously (see, for example, G.S. v. Georgia , no. 2361/13, §§ 63-64, 21 July 2015)?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected in the proceedings conducted before the Armenian courts (see Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 146, 19 September 2017)?