Background
Greek national Anestis Spyridonidis and his former wife had two Greek-national children. After living in Ukraine and returning to Greece because of the war, the family travelled to Armenia in July 2022. The applicant said the stay was meant to be short, but the mother refused to return with the children to Greece in December 2022.
In April 2023, the applicant sought the children’s return under the Hague Convention. The Armenian courts found that their retention was wrongful and that Greece was their habitual residence, but refused return under Article 13 of the Hague Convention. They relied on the older child’s mature and clearly expressed objection, psychological evidence, the children’s emotional circumstances and integration in Armenia, and the importance of keeping the younger child with his mother and brother. The proceedings ended in July 2024, about 15 months after they began.
The Court’s Holding
The Court rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s Article 8 complaint about the refusal to return the children. It held that the domestic courts had conducted a sufficiently thorough, individualized assessment of the children’s best interests and the Hague Convention exceptions. The older child’s views could independently support a refusal of return, and the courts had reasonably found him mature enough for those views to carry weight.
The Court also held that the privately obtained psychological report’s non-adversarial character did not by itself make the domestic assessment deficient. It was not the only evidence considered, and the applicant could have sought an additional examination. However, the Court found an Article 8 violation because the overall 15-month duration of the return proceedings was incompatible with the obligation to act expeditiously, particularly given unexplained delays of about seven months on appeal and two months in cassation. It awarded EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage.
Key Takeaways
- A Hague Convention return refusal may comply with Article 8 where domestic courts give relevant and sufficient, individualized reasons grounded in the children’s best interests.
- A sufficiently mature child’s objection to return may itself justify exercising discretion not to order return.
- Hague return proceedings require exceptional speed; unexplained appellate and cassation delays can breach Article 8 even where the merits assessment was adequate.
Why It Matters
The judgment separates the merits of a Hague return decision from the State’s procedural duty to decide swiftly. Armenia was not required to return the children on the facts assessed by its courts, but it was still responsible for ensuring that the proceedings moved with the urgency inherent in international child-abduction cases.
For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of developing evidence on the child’s views and welfare while also pressing courts to justify and avoid delays at every stage of Hague Convention litigation.