Background
Smbat Avetyan, a United States national, was awarded full physical custody of his daughter by a California court in March 2023. The child was later taken to Armenia and, after her mother travelled to the United States in October 2024, remained with her maternal grandparents. When Avetyan travelled to Armenia to assume care, the grandparents refused to release the child.
In February 2025, Avetyan sought the child’s return before the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction. The court declined to order an interim return but set a visitation schedule. Repeated enforcement attempts failed. On 31 March 2025, the Civil Court of Appeal ordered the grandparents to return the child to Avetyan pending the proceedings. The enforcement service formally initiated search measures after the child could not be found, but the child was located at the grandparents’ home by 27 May 2025. The authorities did not promptly tell Avetyan.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Armenia violated Article 8. It rejected the Government’s non-exhaustion objection, holding that Avetyan’s failure to appeal decisions declining to open criminal proceedings did not relieve the authorities of their own enforcement duties. It also held that the complaint was not premature merely because the underlying civil custody proceedings remained pending.
After the appellate court ordered the grandparents to return the child, the authorities had a duty to take adequate, swift and effective steps to locate her and enforce Avetyan’s parental rights. The Government showed only that a search had been formally opened, not that concrete investigative steps were taken. No sanctions were imposed despite the grandparents’ repeated non-cooperation. Although the later return of the mother meant the order directed against the grandparents no longer applied, the authorities also unjustifiably delayed nearly four and a half months in informing Avetyan that his daughter had been found. The Court awarded EUR 4,500 in non-pecuniary damage.
Key Takeaways
- Authorities must take concrete, prompt measures to locate a child when enforcing an interim parental-rights order.
- Formal search measures alone are insufficient where the State cannot show meaningful follow-up action.
- Authorities may need to impose sanctions on persons who obstruct child-contact or return orders.
Why It Matters
The judgment underscores that Article 8 requires practical and timely enforcement of parental-rights decisions, particularly where delay can damage a parent-child relationship. The State’s responsibility is not discharged by opening a file or leaving enforcement entirely to the parent.
The Court did not require Armenia to enforce the California custody ruling, because it had not been recognised domestically. Its finding instead concerned Armenia’s failure to effectively enforce its own binding provisional measures while they remained applicable.