18 Oct The procedure for determining the child’s right of access did not meet the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention

In the case of Anagnostakis and Others v. Greece (application no. 46075/16, 23.09.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the access rights granted to the applicants, the father and grandparents of the child concerned (who was two years old when the application was lodged), and the length of various sets of proceedings in which the opposing party was the child’s mother.

With regard to the child’s father, the Court noted that the proceedings – which began on 18 December 2015 – had thus lasted, to date, more than five years and nine months for four levels of jurisdiction, including the proceedings for interim orders. The Court reiterated that in cases of this kind there was always the danger that any procedural delay would result in the de facto determination of the issue. 

Having regard to the States’ positive obligation under the Convention to act with special diligence in such cases, involving residence and access rights in respect of children, the Court concluded that the period of time which had elapsed in the present case could not be considered reasonable. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

With regard to the grandparents, the Court noted that they had not brought a principal action against the child’s mother concerning their access rights. The period which was to be taken into consideration had begun on 10 December 2015, and had ended on 27 June 2016, when decision no. 2924/2016 – by which the first-instance court granted interim access rights – had been published. The proceedings had thus lasted less than six months. The Court considered that, in the present case, the length of the proceedings to determine the arrangements for these two applicants’ access rights in respect of the child had not been unreasonable and that, in consequence, there had been no failure by the national authorities to comply with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. It followed that their application had to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights