Published on 22 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 6481/25
Hrant NAZARYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 15 February 2025
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns the State’s alleged failure to enforce the applicant’s parental rights in respect of his son, raising, in substance, an issue under Article 8 of the Convention.
In 2011 the applicant married A.N., and in 2012 they had a son, A. The couple later divorced, although the date of their divorce is unclear.
In early 2020 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Lori Regional Court against A.N., seeking to restrict her parental rights.
On 14 February 2020, at the applicant’s request, the Lori Regional Court applied a provisional measure pending the outcome of the proceedings, ordering A.N., inter alia, not to obstruct the applicant and A. from living together, provided that the child so wished.
Subsequently, the Compulsory Enforcement Service (“the CES”) initiated enforcement proceedings to enforce the Lori Regional Court’s provisional order. It appears that, during those enforcement proceedings, A. expressed a wish to remain with his mother.
On 5 March 2020 the bailiff at the CES ordered an expert examination concerning the child’s psychological state, his emotional ties with his parents, possible external influence on the expression of his wishes, and his best interests.
On 26 July 2020 a group of three experts, having conducted supervised meetings with the applicant, A. and A.N., delivered their report. They observed, inter alia, that the meeting between the child and his father took place in a relaxed and positive atmosphere, and that the child expressed that he had missed his father and wished to meet him more often. However, the mother reacted aggressively in connection with that meeting, started shouting at the child and blaming him for accepting gifts from the father, repeatedly reproaching him and creating a psychologically harmful and pedagogically inappropriate environment. The child was frightened by her aggressive and confrontational behaviour. The report further noted that the child’s best interests required maintaining contact with both parents, but that he was deprived of such contact due to the mother’s psychological influence.
On 2 April 2021 the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction (“the Yerevan Court”), within the scope of another civil dispute between the applicant and A.N. concerning custody and child support, applied another provisional measure. It ordered A.N. not to obstruct the contact between the applicant and his son and granted the applicant contact every Saturday from 2 p.m. until Sunday at 6 p.m., without A.N.’s presence. The court further required A.N. not to obstruct regular telephone contact between the applicant and his son. The CES initiated proceedings for the enforcement of that order. However, it appears that it was unable to secure contact between the applicant and his son.
On 11 April, 12 July and 12 August 2022 investigators at the Investigative Committee initiated criminal proceedings in connection with an alleged obstruction by A.N. of the applicant’s contact rights under the Yerevan Court’s order, as well as an alleged official negligence of the bailiffs in enforcing the Lori Regional Court’s order and addressing the issues identified in the expert report of 26 July 2020.
It appears that, at the time of lodging the present application, both the enforcement proceedings and the criminal proceedings were still pending.
The applicant complains, in substance, that the provisional orders of the Lori Regional Court and the Yerevan Court concerning his parental rights have not been enforced and that, for several years, he has been deprived of contact with his son. He refers to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of effective remedies.
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) Have the domestic authorities taken all necessary steps that could reasonably be demanded in the specific circumstances to enforce the applicant’s parental rights and to facilitate contact between him and his son (see K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, §§ 142-44, 14 March 2017; E.K. v. Latvia, no. 25942/20, §§ 72-77, 13 April 2023; and Anagnostakis v. Greece, no. 26504/20, §§ 55-58, 10 October 2023).
b) 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, for example, Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 76, ECHR 2003-VII, and Sévère v. Austria, no. 53661/15, § 98, 21 September 2017)? If so, have these mechanisms been effectively applied in the present case?
2. Have there been any other violations of the Convention, as alleged by the applicant?
The Government are requested to provide information on the specific measures taken by the CES to secure compliance with the court orders, together with copies of the relevant materials from the enforcement proceedings. They are further requested to provide up-to-date information on the current status of the criminal proceedings.
The applicant is requested to provide up-to-date information on the current status of the main proceedings before the Lori Regional Court and the Yerevan Court, as well as copies of the decisions by which, according to the applicant, those courts refused A.N.’s requests to lift the provisional orders.