FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10405/17
Ruzanna TER-VARDANYAN
against Armenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Jolien Schukking, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Ludmila Milanova, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 10405/17) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 January 2017 by an Armenian national, Ms Ruzanna Ter-Vardanyan, who was born in 1950 and lives in Yerevan (“the applicant”), and who was represented by Ms A. Dashyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the alleged non‑enforcement of final judicial decisions granting the applicant visiting rights in respect of her grandchildren to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the authorities’ alleged failure to ensure the enforcement of final judicial decisions granting her contact rights in respect of her grandchildren.
2. In 2004 the applicant’s son, V., married E. in 2005 and 2008 E. gave birth to their two daughters, L. and S., respectively.
3. After L.’s birth family disagreements arose between the spouses and the applicant.
4. In 2009 the applicant filed a civil claim against E. seeking contact rights in respect of L. and S.
5. By a final judgment of 24 June 2010 the Civil Court of Appeal decided that contact between the applicant and her granddaughters should take place each Saturday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
6. In 2011 E. gave birth to a boy, N.
7. In 2013 the applicant filed a civil claim against E. seeking contact rights in respect of N.
8. By a final judgment of 10 July 2013 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) allowed the applicant’s contact with N. each Saturday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. as well. From 2010 until 2014 the applicant maintained contact with her grandchildren without the involvement of the authorities.
9. E. and the applicant’s son separated on an unspecified date and divorced in October 2014.
10. On 30 May 2014 the applicant applied to the Department for Execution of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”).
11. On 2 June 2014 the DEJA instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 10 July 2013 (see paragraph 8 above) and joined them to the already instituted proceedings in respect of the judgment of 24 June 2010 (see paragraph 5 above).
12. On 23 August 2014, the bailiff visited the apartment where E. and the children lived to organise a visit. According to the relevant record, upon entering the apartment the applicant started arguing with E. blaming her for exerting pressure on the children not to maintain contact with her and threatening to beat them. L. and S. refused to leave with the applicant. They still refused to leave with the applicant when the bailiff offered to leave together with them. Eventually the applicant took N. and left.
13. On the same date the applicant lodged a civil claim against E. on her and V.’s behalf, seeking custody of the children. V. filed an application stating that he had never authorised the applicant to bring such a legal action and that he wished to withdraw the claim that had been submitted on his behalf.
14. On 4 October 2014 the applicant took N. for a scheduled visit and refused to return the child. According to the relevant record, the bailiff had telephoned the applicant who had stated that she was not going to return the child and intended to apply to the police to have E. prosecuted. The child was returned on 6 October 2014.
15. On 17 October 2014 the DEJA involved a psychologist to provide assistance in the enforcement proceedings.
16. The DEJA scheduled a meeting on 18 October 2014 in the presence of a psychologist but the meeting did not take place as E. did not show up with the children. The bailiff visited E.’s apartment together with the applicant and the psychologist but no one could be found. They then visited V.’s apartment and that of the applicant where the psychologist had a conversation with both of them.
17. On 20 October 2014 the bailiff visited E.’s apartment and the kindergarten where N. attended. According to the record of the visit, L. and S. stated that they did not wish to maintain contact with the applicant since the latter constantly said bad things about their mother. On the same date the bailiff made a decision to involve expert psychologists in the proceedings to conduct a psychological evaluation of the situation with the applicant and her grandchildren and to determine the reasons behind their problems of socialising with each other.
18. On 21 October 2014 the DEJA applied to the head of the local community where E. and the children lived, seeking information about the family situation, with reference to the applicant’s statements that E. was putting pressure on the children and ill-treating them. In reply, the DEJA was informed that the social services had not discovered any irregularities as a result of numerous visits and discussions with the members of the family, including V., and that it had been concluded that E. was taking proper care of the children.
19. Another meeting was scheduled by the DEJA on 25 October 2014 in the presence of two psychologists. According to the record of the meeting, immediately upon arrival the applicant had started shouting and demanding for E. to leave. When the bailiff asked E. to leave, the children followed her crying and did not wish to go back without her. When the children returned with E., the applicant started shouting again by saying that she was entitled to meet with her grandchildren without E. being present. E. then left but the applicant, disregarding the psychologists’ proposal to continue the meeting with the children, still refused to do so and continued insulting E.
20. In October and November 2014 the applicant lodged a number of claims with the administrative courts seeking the recusal of the bailiff. Those claims were left unexamined for lack of jurisdiction.
21. In December 2014 the applicant filed a police report seeking to have E. prosecuted for deliberately not complying with the judgments. The criminal proceedings instituted in that connection were terminated by a decision not to prosecute E. for absence of a crime.
22. In January 2015 the applicant filed another police report claiming that E. was beating the children and not taking care of their health. The institution of criminal proceedings was refused.
23. In the psychological expert report of 15 March 2015 it was considered, inter alia, that there was no emotional bonding between the applicant and her grandchildren, who experienced anxiety during the meetings with her.
24. The DEJA has not received any requests from the applicant since 2 March 2015.
25. In January 2019 E. applied to the DEJA stating that the applicant had not requested any meetings with the children for more than four years.
26. In May 2019 the DEJA requested a further psychological assessment. According to the ensuing conclusion of 7 July 2019, the children had traumatic memories of the applicant and did not wish to see her.
27. By decision of 18 August 2019 the DEJA discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that the enforcement had become impossible. According to the decision, it was subject to appeal to the relevant bailiff’s superior and the administrative courts.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
28. The applicant’s complaints are most appropriately examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 50, 10 January 2012).
29. The Court takes note of the Government’s preliminary objections as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, failure to comply with the six‑month time limit and abuse of the right of application. It considers, however, that it is not necessary to examine the Government’s objections as the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
30. The applicant maintained contact with her grandchildren until 2014 and it has not been disputed that family ties existed between her and her grandchildren. The Court is thus satisfied that the relations between the applicant and her grandchildren constituted “family life” protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see Manuello and Nevi v. Italy, no. 107/10, § 50, 20 January 2015, with further references).
31. The Court’s task is therefore to consider, whether in the light of the relevant principles in its case-law (see Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, § 71, 2 November 2010, and Manuello and Nevi, cited above, §§ 47-49), the Armenian authorities took all the appropriate steps that could reasonably be demanded to facilitate the contacts between the applicant and her grandchildren and to comply with the final judgments according her contact (see Cristescu, cited above, § 61, and P.F. v. Poland, no. 2210/12, § 58, 16 September 2014).
32. The relationship between grandparents and grandchildren is in general different in nature and degree from the relationship between parent and child and thus by its very nature generally calls for a lesser degree of protection (see G.H.B. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42455/98, 4 May 2000, with further references). Thus, the right to respect for family life of grandparents in relation to their grandchildren primarily entails the right to maintain a normal grandparent-grandchild relationship through contacts between them (see Kruskic and others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 10140/13, § 111, 25 November 2014).
33. In the present case, when the applicant requested the assistance of the bailiff for the execution of her contact rights, her request was granted and enforcement proceeding were instituted without undue delay (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above; compare and contrast Manuello and Nevi, cited above, § 55).
34. The difficulties in arranging contact were admittedly in large measure due to the animosity between the applicant and E. Their conflict and the children’s reluctance towards seeing their grandmother made it particularly difficult for the authorities to fully enforce the applicant’s visiting rights (see paragraphs 12, 17 and 19 above).
35. Nevertheless, the authorities took a number of measures, including by involving expert psychologists in the enforcement proceedings and cooperating with the social services in order to find solutions in a delicate family situation (see paragraphs 15 and 18 above).
36. However, the applicant refused professional assistance and did not show any commitment to re-establish contact with her grandchildren (see paragraph 19 above when the applicant refused to continue the visit despite the psychologists’ request even after E. had left). Instead, she showed aggressive behaviour towards E., also in the presence of the children (see paragraphs 12 and 19 above, as well as the relevant psychological reports cited in paragraphs 23 and 26 above) and at times escalated the conflict (see paragraph 14 above). Additionally, she sought to deprive E. of parental rights notably by submitting a court claim also on behalf of V. despite not having the latter’s authorisation (see paragraph 13 above) and tried to have E. prosecuted in connection with allegations of the children’s ill-treatment which were not confirmed either by the social services or the law‑enforcement authorities (see paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 above).
37. The Court further notes that the applicant did not seek contact with her grandchildren after 2 March 2015 (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above). She submitted in this connection that she did not have to remind the bailiffs of their obligation to enforce her contact rights. However, the bailiff, an individual unknown to the children, could not have been expected to go alone to the children’s home in order to take them away and deliver them to the applicant for a visit (see Fuşcă v. Romania, no. 34630/07, § 46, 13 July 2010, and Cristescu, cited above, § 67).
38. In the light of the foregoing, in view of the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities and having in mind that the obligation to take measures to facilitate contact is one of means and not result, the Court considers that when handling the applicant’s case the authorities had due regard to the best interests of the children in question and of the family as a whole, while taking all the steps to enforce the applicant’s contact rights which could reasonably have been demanded in the very difficult situation at hand.
39. It follows from the above that the complaint under 8 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2022.
Ludmila Milanova Jolien Schukking
Acting Deputy Registrar President