Background
Yuri and Margarita Aslanyan, Russian nationals, were the paternal grandparents of a child born in 2017. After the child’s mother moved from Russia to Armenia with him in 2019, the grandparents sought contact rights before the Yerevan Court. On 8 June 2021, that court ordered an interim arrangement allowing them to see their grandson in the mother’s presence on specified days each month.
The grandparents travelled from Russia to Armenia for visits, accompanied by a bailiff, but received no response at the mother’s residence. Authorities failed to resolve uncertainty over the location for visits, criminal proceedings concerning alleged obstruction produced no meaningful result, and no sanctions were imposed. The mother left Armenia with the child in April 2022. The child’s father was a third party in the domestic contact proceedings but had not sought contact rights under the interim order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Armenia violated Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the period from 8 June 2021 until the child left Armenia. The grandparents’ court-ordered contact entitlement concerned their family life, and the authorities had a positive obligation to take practical and adequate measures to facilitate it while protecting the child’s best interests.
Armenia fell short of that obligation. Confusion over the venue for visits, inadequate coordination between enforcement and law-enforcement bodies, the absence of effective sanctions for the mother’s non-compliance, and the failure to use practical support such as childcare or social services meant that the binding interim order was effectively disregarded. The Court rejected the father’s complaint as inadmissible because he was not a victim of the alleged violation: the order did not grant him contact rights. It found no State responsibility for enforcing the Armenian arrangement after the child had left Armenia. No award was made because the applicants did not claim just satisfaction.
Key Takeaways
- Article 8 requires practical, diligent enforcement of binding child-contact orders, including orders benefiting grandparents.
- Authorities must coordinate effectively and may need to impose appropriate sanctions where the resident parent persistently obstructs contact.
- A person cannot bring an Article 34 complaint based on contact arrangements that did not concern that person’s own rights.
Why It Matters
The judgment underscores that a contact order cannot remain merely formal. Where a child’s carer obstructs access, authorities must act effectively and promptly to make the ordered family contact real, while keeping the child’s welfare paramount.
It also delineates the territorial limit of the enforcement duty: Armenia was responsible for its inaction while the child was within its territory, but not for enforcing the original domestic arrangement after the child relocated abroad.