The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) addressed the effectiveness of the enforcement of judicial acts regarding visitation with a child in its ruling against Armenia.
On October 1, 2026, the ECHR ruled in the case of Avetyan v. Armenia (Application No. 11997/25) that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, confirming that the Armenian authorities had not taken sufficient measures to ensure the exercise of the father's parental rights and the reunification of him and his daughter.
The ruling is particularly significant for cases involving the enforcement of judicial acts regarding visitation with children and parental rights. The European Court reaffirmed that formal actions aimed at enforcing a judicial act are insufficient; competent authorities are obliged to take real, effective, and timely measures, including applying appropriate sanctions against individuals obstructing the enforcement of the judicial act when necessary.
Facts of the case:
The Republic of Armenia had failed to enforce the temporary order of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction regarding the father's visitation with his daughter and subsequently the temporary measures for handing the child over to the father until the case was resolved on its merits.
The enforcement service had conducted visits and drawn up reports regarding the failure to disclose the child's whereabouts. Accordingly, the Service had contacted the police to ascertain the child's location.
The child was found in May 2025 at the residence of her maternal grandparents.
Main deficiencies recorded by the European Court:
1. The formal nature of search measures (§ 23)
The European Court noted that although the police had officially declared a search, the Government had not provided evidence of specific actions taken to locate the child. In particular, there was no evidence of inquiries made with the child's grandfather, obtaining information from relatives, neighbors, or other institutions, or any attempts to ascertain the grandmother's location through phone tracking data. The Court found it particularly concerning that in such a serious situation where the child's whereabouts were unknown, the Government could not present evidence of any specific measures taken apart from the official declaration of a search.
Although the child was found about two months after the search was announced, the Government did not prove that this occurred as a result of specific actions taken by state authorities, rather than due to the child's mother returning to Armenia.
Thus, the mere fact of the child's discovery was insufficient to establish the effectiveness of the actions of state authorities.
2. Failure to timely inform the father about the child's discovery (§ 27)
The European Court also found it problematic that the father was not timely informed about the child's discovery. Although the child was found in May 2025, the enforcement officer decided to cease the search only in October, and the next day a corresponding letter to the father was prepared.
The Court emphasized that the delay of about four and a half months could have caused feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for the father, as well as negatively affect his relationship with his daughter.
It was reaffirmed that in cases concerning parent-child relationships, the passage of time can lead to irreversible consequences.
3. Failure to hold accountable individuals obstructing the enforcement of the judicial act (§ 24)
The Court also addressed the behavior of the child's grandmother and grandfather, who repeatedly failed to ensure the child's presence at the meetings stipulated by the judicial act and did not disclose her whereabouts. Nevertheless, they were not held accountable.
Referring to its case law, particularly the cases of Maire v. Portugal, Sévère v. Austria, and Tzioumaka v. Greece, the European Court reaffirmed that in the absence of cooperation from individuals living with the child, it is the duty of competent authorities to apply appropriate sanctions, and they should do so even on their own initiative if necessary.
The ruling also expressed important legal positions regarding the admissibility of the complaint.
The Government argued that the Applicant had not exhausted domestic legal remedies, as he had not appealed the decisions not to initiate criminal proceedings. The European Court rejected this argument (§ 17), emphasizing that the failure to present such appeals does not relieve state authorities of their obligation to ensure the enforcement of the judicial act, including the obligation to apply sanctions independently if necessary.
The Government also argued that the complaint was premature, as the civil case was still ongoing.
The Court also rejected this objection (§ 18), noting that a complaint regarding the non-enforcement of already adopted and enforceable interim measures cannot be considered premature solely because the main civil proceedings are not yet concluded.
Thus, the European Court concluded that the lack of information regarding specific measures aimed at quickly locating the child, as well as the failure to timely inform the father about the child's discovery, indicate that state authorities did not take all reasonably expected measures to enable the reunification of the father and daughter and to maintain their relationship. As a result, a violation of Article 8 of the Convention was recorded.
3. The significance of the ruling for Armenia's legal practice
The ruling in the case of Avetyan v. Armenia reaffirms an important principle: the state's obligation to ensure the enforcement of judicial acts is not limited to initiating enforcement proceedings, conducting visits, drawing up reports, or declaring searches.
The actions of state authorities should be assessed in terms of their actual content, timeliness, and their contribution to maintaining parent-child relationships.
The ruling is particularly important in cases where the enforcement of judicial acts fails due to the non-cooperation of individuals living with the child. In such situations, the competent authorities of the Republic of Armenia are obliged to apply appropriate sanctions against individuals obstructing the enforcement of the judicial act, even on their own initiative if necessary.
The ruling also serves as a reminder that in enforcement proceedings involving children, the factor of time is crucial; prolonged delays can jeopardize the possibility of maintaining the parent-child relationship.
Source: European Court of Human Rights, Avetyan v. Armenia, Application No. 11997/25, October 1, 2026, §§ 17–29, 33.