Published on 22 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 15762/25
Ekaterina STEBLEVA
against Armenia
lodged on 7 May 2025
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s request for the return of her children, M.M., born in 2013 and G.M., born in 2021, to their habitual place of residence (Russia) under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”).
On 25 June 2023 the father of the children, S.M., travelled to Armenia with M.M., with the applicant’s consent, allegedly with the intention of returning shortly thereafter. On 23 August 2023 he relocated G.M. to Armenia as well. Their stay was extended with the applicant’s consent until 26 October 2023 when S.M. refused to return the children to Russia.
On 16 January 2024 the applicant applied to the Central Authority under the Hague Convention – the Ministry of Justice – seeking the return of the children.
On 8 February 2024 the applicant instituted judicial proceedings to the same end. On 12 February 2024 the Kotayk Regional Court admitted the application for examination under Chapter 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), a chapter specifically governing proceedings concerning applications lodged under the Hague Convention. Pursuant to that chapter, the court was required to deliver its judgment within ten days following the expiry of the time-limit for submission of a response to the application. The relevant provisions also provided for written procedure. The Central Authority was involved as a third party to the proceedings and submitted that the children should be returned to their habitual place of residence in Russia.
On 8 April 2024 the Kotayk Regional Court granted the applicant’s application and ordered the children’s return to Russia.
S.M. appealed against that judgment claiming that the Kotayk Regional Court had erred in examining the case under Chapter 23 of the CCP as it was intended specifically for the applications lodged by the Central Authority.
On 5 June 2024 the Civil Court of Appeal granted S.M.’s appeal and quashed the above judgment. Relying on the Court of Cassation’s precedent of 24 April 2024, it concluded, in particular, that Chapter 23 of the CCP did not apply to applications lodged by parents, but only to those submitted by the Central Authority. The first instance court should therefore have examined the case under Chapter 22 of the CCP (“Procedure for Family Cases”), which implied compliance with the ordinary procedural rules, including the holding of proper court hearings, the preparation of the case for examination and the distribution of the burden of proof, while at the same time having due regard to the principle of expedition required by the Hague Convention. The appeal court further noted that the only hearing conducted by the Kotayk Regional Court had been the one during which M.M.’s views had been heard. However, that examination had been carried out in breach of the applicable procedural rules, as the first instance court had failed to secure the participation of a psychologist or other relevant specialist. As regards G.M., he had not been heard by the court on account of his young age. Nevertheless, in order to ensure his right to be heard, the court ought to have assessed the expert report prepared by a psychological centre concerning his emotional state and the nature of his relationship with his parents.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before the Court of Cassation which declared it inadmissible for lack of merit on 13 February 2025. The proceedings thus remain pending before the first instance court.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of the excessive length of the impugned proceedings alleging that the retroactive application by the appeal court of the Court of Cassation’s new case-law to her pending case had been unforeseeable and caused significant delays in the proceedings. She further complains under Article 13 that she did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 8.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the proceedings under the Hague Convention been conducted expeditiously, as required by Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Adžić v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 94-95, 12 March 2015; G.S. v. Georgia, no. 2361/13, §§ 63-64, 21 July 2015; and G.N. v. Poland, no. 2171/14, §§ 66-68, 19 July 2016)?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy to complain about the length of the impugned proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?