CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 March 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 37598/25 Eddie RACOUBIAN against Armenia lodged on 28 November 2025 communicated on 5 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the State to enforce the applicant’s custody and contact rights in respect of his eleven-year-old son, as well as the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies. In 2005 the applicant and A.A. married and thereafter resided in Lebanon. The couple had two sons, S.R. (born in 2006) and M.R. (born in 2015). In 2019 the applicant filed for divorce in Lebanon. On 6 July 2019 the applicant and A.A. concluded a notarised agreement governing their divorce, financial matters and child custody. The agreement provided, inter alia , that S.R. would reside with the applicant in Lebanon, while M.R. would reside with A.A. in Armenia until 1 July 2022, after which M.R. was to return to Lebanon to live with the applicant. Under the agreement, the applicant had a right to visit M.R. in Armenia every two months for up to seven consecutive days, subject to at least one week’s prior notice and on condition that S.R. accompanied him, with the possibility for S.R. to stay with A.A. during that period. On 30 January 2020 the agreement was approved by a Lebanese court. After M.R. relocated to Armenia, the applicant applied for the recognition and enforcement of the Lebanese judgment in Armenia. On 16 April 2021 the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction (“the Yerevan Court”) decided to recognise the judgment of the Lebanese court and to authorise its enforcement in Armenia. That decision became final on 24   November 2021. On 20 January 2022 the Compulsory Enforcement Service (“the CES”) initiated enforcement proceedings. On 11 April 2022 a bailiff at the CES issued a decision obliging A.A. to comply with the Yerevan Court’s decision, including (i) handing over M.R. to the applicant on 1 July 2022, and (ii) complying with the judicial act granting the applicant visitation rights in respect of M.R. On 15 June 2022 the bailiff amended his decision, reiterating A.A.’s obligation to hand over M.R. to the applicant on 1 July 2022 and removing the part concerning the applicant’s visitation rights. On 24 June 2022 A.A. lodged a claim with the Administrative Court, challenging the CES’s decisions of 11 April 2022 and 15 June 2022. On 30 June 2022 the Administrative Court admitted A.A.’s claim for examination and, as an interim measure, suspended the execution of the bailiff’s contested decisions, which consequently led to the suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the Administrative Court’s decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal and subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. On 26 May 2023 the Court of Cassation granted the applicant’s appeal and set aside the Administrative Court’s decision. The Court of Cassation held that A.A. had not substantiated that allowing enforcement to proceed would cause her significant harm or render the protection of her rights impossible. It further found that suspending enforcement would unjustifiably delay the proceedings and risk calling into question the lawfulness of the final judicial act, which could not be permitted. On 8 June 2023 the bailiff resumed the enforcement proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant made numerous attempts to establish contact with his son, including through the CES and the local child protection authorities, but his attempts were unsuccessful. It appears that A.A. failed to comply with the custody and visitation arrangements and concealed the child. On 6 December 2024 the Investigative Committee, following a crime report submitted by the applicant, instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged failure on the part of A.A. to comply with the final judicial act, insofar as it concerned the applicant’s contact rights, and the obstruction of its execution. On 16 December 2024 the CES, for its part, having concluded that A.A. was evading compliance with the visitation arrangements established by the judicial act, submitted a crime report to the Prosecutor’s Office. No information is available as to the subsequent progress or outcome of the criminal proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities have failed to discharge their positive obligations by not ensuring the enforcement of his custody and contact rights in respect of M.R. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy at his disposal for his complaint under Article   8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:   1.     Have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention by taking adequate, swift and effective measures to enforce the applicant’s parental rights (see   Malec v. Poland , no.   28623/12, §§   66-67, 28 June 2016, and   E.K. v. Latvia , no.   25942/20, §§ 72-77, 13   April 2023)?   2.     Does the domestic legal system provide adequate and sufficient legal mechanisms, including appropriate sanctions, to ensure compliance with the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in the event of a lack of cooperation or manifestly unlawful behaviour by the persons with whom the child is living (see   Maire v. Portugal , no.   48206/99, §   76, ECHR   2003-VII;   Sévère v. Austria , no.   53661/15, § 98, 21 September 2017; and   Tzioumaka v. Greece , no.   31022/20, § 86, 9 April 2024)? If so, have these mechanisms been effectively applied in the present case?   The Government are requested to provide information on the criminal proceedings instituted in relation to the non-compliance with the judicial act at issue, including the investigative measures undertaken and their outcome.   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?