Judgment 28982/19

Applicant name BAHAROV
Applicant type Natural person
Number of applicants1
Country Ukraine
Application no.28982/19
Date 04/05/2023
JudgesCarlo Ranzoni, President,
 Mattias Guyomar,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy
Institution Court
Type Judgment
Outcome Art. 8 Violation
Reason Positive obligation
Type of privacy Procedural privacy; relational privacy
Keywords Custody; contact with child; length proceedings
Facts of the caseMother takes child, without father’s consent, to Ukraine to live there. Father asks Ukrainian authorities for the return of the child to the United States, where he is living. He complains about the length of the proceedings.
AnalysisThe applicant relied both on Article 6 and 8 of the Convention. The Court, relying on the procedural requirements implicit in substantive rights, deals with the matter exclusively under the right to privacy. It accepts that the Ukranian Supreme Court had a particularly high workload and that applicant had partially attributed to the delay in this case due to starting several new procedures. However, such was his right; he did not abuse the justice system or his rights. The Court arrives at the conclusion that Article 8 ECHR had been violated in this case. In particular, it points to the fact that  the domestic proceedings for the return of the applicant’s then six-year-old child lasted for over two years; in particular, it took the Regional Department of Justice around six months to institute the domestic court proceedings following the submission of the applicant’s application. This is too long given the urgent nature of the application.
Other Article violation? No violation of Article 6
Damage awardedThat the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
Documents Judgment