Published on 12 February 2024
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 27249/21
Arsen Grachyayevych BORANYAN and Robert Arsenovych BORANYAN
against Ukraine
lodged on 17 May 2021
communicated on 22 January 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present application, lodged by a father (the first applicant) on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son born in January 2015 (the second applicant), concerns the proceedings in which the first applicant sought the return of the second applicant from Ukraine, where the latter had been living since May 2017 after having been taken there by his mother without the first applicant’s consent, to Armenia, the country of the second applicant’s habitual residence, pursuant to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). In particular, the first applicant’s application for the second applicant’s return, submitted to the Ukrainian authorities in June 2017, was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court’s decision of 22 December 2022. Relying mainly on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the outcome and conduct of the proceedings. He further complains that the Ukrainian authorities and courts failed to take effective measures to ensure his access to the second applicant while the proceedings were ongoing, in particular that on different dates between October 2018 and October 2020 the courts dismissed his applications for an interim order to compel the second applicant’s mother to allow him to see and communicate with the child on a regular basis in Ukraine.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for private and/or family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the domestic authorities’ and courts’ alleged failure to act expeditiously, as required under the Hague Convention, upon the first applicant’s application for the second applicant’s return to Armenia; the domestic courts’ dismissal of that application; and/or the authorities’ and courts’ alleged failure to take effective measures to ensure the first applicant’s access to the second applicant while the proceedings were ongoing (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 92-120, ECHR 2013; Ferrari v. Romania, no. 1714/10, §§ 41-56, 28 April 2015; Vilenchik v. Ukraine, no. 21267/14, §§ 47 and 53-56, 3 October 2017; and Cristian Cătălin Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 6221/14, §§ 28-35, 4 September 2018)?