Published on 30 March 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 26912/24
Mesut SAYGILI
against Georgia
lodged on 17 September 2024
communicated on 9 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s contact right with his daughter born out of wedlock in 2012. The applicant is a Turkish citizen who resides and works in Switzerland, while his daughter lives in Georgia with her mother.
On 21 December 2018 the applicant instituted proceedings requesting that the court set a contact schedule with his daughter in Georgia (one week every four months, including overnight stays) and to authorise him to take her abroad for three weeks per year during summer and winter school holidays.
On 26 November 2020 the Tbilisi City Court, having regard to the findings of the child’s psychological assessment and her interview before the judge, partially granted the applicant’s request. It held that the child was unable to sleep without her mother and was unwilling to travel abroad without her; accordingly, it granted the applicant contact with his daughter in Georgia three weeks per year, without overnight stays and dismissed the request to take the child abroad during school holidays. The first-instance court proceedings lasted two years, and the applicant’s request for interim order for contact rights was not granted until the delivery of the first-instance judgment.
The applicant appealed and, among other requests, sought a psychological re-assessment of his daughter. He argued that, in the meantime she had grown older and their relationship had developed closer. He also alleged that the first-instance court had ignored psychological and social services reports, which found that he and his daughter shared a close and caring relationship, and that maintaining regular and meaningful contact with her father was in the child’s best interests. On 21 June 2023 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court decision in its entirety. It also rejected the request for a fresh psychological examination, concluding that it could traumatise the girl. On 30 April 2024 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
The case file indicates that, on several occasions, the applicant complained that the child’s mother was obstructing the court-ordered contact arrangements, yet no action was taken in response.
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about both the outcome and the length of the proceedings. Among other things he alleges that the domestic courts failed to put in place a framework allowing for meaningful contact with his daughter; delayed in considering his request for interim contact arrangements; refused to order a fresh psychological assessment of the child despite a significant lapse of time; and failed to address the mother’s obstructive behaviour.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the State’s positive and procedural obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, was the manner in which the relevant proceedings were conducted and the decision subsequently adopted in breach of that Article? Reference is made, in particular, to the following elements:
(i) the content of the domestic courts’ final ruling on the applicant’s contact rights with his daughter having regard to the requirement of meaningful contact (see, for example, Popadić v. Serbia, no. 7833/12, 20 September 2022, and I.S. v. Greece, no. 19165/20, 23 May 2023);
(ii) the delay in the examination of the applicant’s request for interim contact rights (see, for example, M.K. v. Latvia, no. 26035/23, 3 July 2025);
(iii) the refusal of the higher courts to order the child’s additional psychological examination (see, for example, Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts);
(iv) the length of the proceedings (see, for example, Penchevi v. Bulgaria, no. 77818/12, 10 February 2015, and Ribić v. Croatia, no. 27148/12, 2 April 2015);
(v) the authorities’ reaction to the children’s mother obstructing the applicant’s contact with his children (see, for example, Strumia v. Italy, no. 53377/13, 23 June 2016, and Baškys v. Lithuania, no. 47410/20, 22 November 2022).
2. Was the length of the proceedings compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?