CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 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. 21598/25 A.S. against Armenia lodged on 8 October 2025 communicated on 4 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s request for the return of his son, A., born in 2015, to his habitual place of residence (the United Kingdom) under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). In April 2022 the applicant and his former wife (K.H.) travelled to Armenia with A. aiming, as he claims, to return shortly afterwards. On 23 April 2022 K.H. filed a domestic violence report against the applicant resulting in an emergency intervention order prohibiting the applicant to approach her and A. for twenty days. On 27 April 2022 the applicant returned to the United Kingdom while K.H. refused to send their son back there. In the meantime, the applicant challenged the emergency intervention order before the Administrative Court which quashed it on the grounds that his procedural rights had been breached when issuing it. That decision was upheld upon appeal. Subsequently, a protective order by a civil court was issued against the applicant at K.H.’s request, prohibiting him from approaching or otherwise contacting her for a period of six months. On 3 May 2022 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of domestic violence. On 6 April 2023 the applicant initiated judicial proceedings seeking A.’s return to the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention and the establishment of remote contact with him as an interim measure. On 11 April 2023 the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan (“the district court”) granted the applicant’s request for interim measures in part and ordered daily video calls with A. It appears that the decision on remote contact has not been enforced. According to the bailiff’s statement, she visited K.H.’s residence on four occasions to facilitate video calls between the applicant and his son. However, A. refused to speak with the applicant during those calls. On 19 May 2023 the district court rejected the applicant’s application under the Hague Convention. Following the applicant’s appeal, the Civil Court of Appeal found in his favour and remitted the case to the district court for re-examination, where it remains pending. On 1 March 2024 criminal proceedings were instituted against K.H. for allegedly obstructing the enforcement of the interim measure which were subsequently discontinued. Following the applicant’s successful appeal, no information was submitted to the Court as to the current status of those proceedings. On 3 September 2024 the applicant sought the modification of the decision of 11 April 2023, requesting that the venue of the video calls provided for therein be changed from K.H.’s residence to A.’s school and be held in her absence. On 16 September 2024 the district court dismissed that request. On 4 December 2024 the enforcement proceedings of the interim measures were discontinued. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of the non ‑ enforcement of the decision of 11 April 2023 authorising remote contact with A., of the authorities’ failure to save contact between him and his son in the course of the proceedings under the Hague Convention, and of the excessive length of those proceedings. He further complains under Article 13 that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of his complaint concerning the length of the impugned proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, have the domestic authorities taken all the necessary steps that could be demanded in the particular circumstances of this case to enforce the domestic court’s decision of 11 April 2023 and to save contact between the applicant and A. (see Ribić v. Croatia , no. 27148/12, §§ 92-95, 2 April 2015; G.N. v. Poland, no. 2171/14, § 75, 19 July 2016; E.K. v. Latvia , no. 25942/20, §§ 72-77, 13   April 2023)?   2.     Were the proceedings under the Hague Convention conducted expeditiously, as required by Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Adžić v. Croatia , no. 22643/14, §§ 94-95, 12 March 2015; G.S. v.   Georgia , no. 2361/13, §§ 63-64, 21 July 2015; and G.N. v. Poland, cited above, §§ 66-68)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy to complain about the length of the impugned proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to inform the Court of any further developments in the present case, including those relating to the enforcement of the decision of 11 April 2023 and the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on suspicion of domestic violence, and to submit copies of all relevant documents.