ECHR: Greece
European Court rules in favor of individuals in two cases against Greek authorities, awarding compensation for violation of human rights and non-pecuniary damage. Limited contact was granted to a father with alleged history of bodily harm, which was later terminated.
THIRD SECTION CASE OF I.S. v. GREECE (Application no. 19165/20) JUDGMENT Art 8 Positive obligations Family life Domestic authorities failure to take all necessary measures to enforce the applicants right to have contact and to establish a relationship with his daughters No real follow-up on orders for counselling, psychiatric evaluations and social welfare reports STRASBOURG 23 May 2023 I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 1 In the case of I.S. v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Pere Pastor Vilanova , President , Georgios A. Serghides, Darian Pavli, Having regard to: the application (no. 19165/20) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) by a Greek national, Mr I.S. (the applicant), on 14 April 2020; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (the Government) of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention; the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court); the decision not to have the applicants name disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by G.S., the applicants ex-wife and the childrens mother, who was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section pursuant to Article 36 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 3 of the Rules of Court; Having deliberated in private on 2 May 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1. The application concerns the applicants loss of contact with his children, despite domestic decisions granting him contact rights, and the alleged failure of the authorities to conduct a psychological report and social welfare report. The applicant submitted multiple complaints to various domestic authorities to no avail. He complained of a violation of his right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Athens. He was represented by Mr A. Anagnostakis, a lawyer practising in Athens. I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 2 3. The Government were represented by their Agents delegate, Mrs O. Patsopoulou, Senior Advisor at the State Legal Council. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. I.BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 5. The applicant married G.S. in June 2007. In December 2007 their first daughter, A., was born and in June 2011 their second daughter, K., was born. II.JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING CUSTODY 7. By decision no. 8168/2012 of the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance, the applicant obtained temporary custody of the children, who stayed with him in their family home. The mother was granted contact rights, as at the time she was facing health issues which did not allow her to have custody of her children. 8. Following her treatment, G.S. lodged an application for interim measures with the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance, requesting that decision no. 8168/2012 be amended and that custody of the children be awarded to her. By decision no. 14327/2013 of 3 December 2013, the court temporarily awarded custody to her. The children have thus been living with their mother since 11 December 2013. 9. By decision no. 363/2017 of 19 April 2017, the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance awarded permanent custody of the children to G.S. That decision was upheld by decision no. 257/2019 of 14 January 2019 of the Athens One-Member Court of Appeal, which held that awarding custody to the father would be problematic. On the one hand, the children had adapted I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 3 III.JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE APPLICANTS CONTACT RIGHTS 10. On 20 December 2013 the applicant lodged an application for interim measures with the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance, requesting that he be given contact rights with his children. On 25 April 2014 the court issued judgment no. 4849/2014, which stated that, despite an incident in September 2013 where it was probable that the applicant had caused bodily harm to his older daughter, resulting in bruises, he still loved his children and should therefore have regular contact with them. It thus granted the applicant contact rights two to three days per week, in addition to certain days during the Christmas, Easter and summer holidays, without however allowing the children to stay overnight at their fathers place. 11. The applicant then lodged a further application for interim measures with the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance, requesting that the above-mentioned decision be amended. On 30 December 2015 the court delivered judgment no. 10569/2015, by which it held that the applicant would have contact with his children, then aged eight and four and a half, in accordance with the following schedule: every Thursday from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., every first weekend of the month (including a night at the applicants place of residence), the second and fourth Sunday of each month, as well as part of the Christmas, Easter and summer holidays. When the children would stay overnight at their fathers house, contact would take place with his mother or sister present. In addition, the applicant would pick up the children 12. According to the evidence in the case file, the applicants contact with the children did not go smoothly. From January 2016, shortly after judgment no. 10569/2015 was delivered, he would show up at Kifissia police station, but the children would refuse to go with him and contact would be terminated. The police recorded the incidents in their incident log. That situation lasted from January 2016 to July 2019. 13. On 29 February 2016 the applicant lodged an application with the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance, requesting that his contact 18 and 21 below), the One-Member Court of First Instance held a further hearing on 12 October 2020 and on 8 January 2021 delivered its judgment no. 152/2021 (after the lodging of the present I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 4 of both parents. It held that for the childrens benefit, the applicants contact should be gradually reinstated and that both parents should work towards that goal. For the first trimester following the decision, the children should not stay overnight at the applicants house and for the period after that, the schedule would be as follows: every first and third weekend of the month from Friday afternoon until Sunday afternoon, a week during the Christmas and Easter holidays and thirty days during the summer holidays. The pick-up and drop-off of the children would take place at the mothers home on the island of Tinos. In addition, telephone contact could take place every afternoon. If G.S. obstructed the applicants contact with his children, for each occasion she would face a penalty of 250 euros (EUR) and one month imprisonment. According to the applicant, that judgment was not enforced. Both the applicant and G.S. appealed against that judgment; no decision IV.REPORTS DRAWN UP BY THE SOCIAL WORKER AND CHILD PSYCHIATRIST A.Procedural matters 15. Following decisions no. 420/2017 and 3551/2017 of 2 May 2017 ordering a social welfare report and report by a child psychiatrist, on 11 December 2017 G.S. lodged two applications with the courts, requesting that the above-mentioned decisions be revoked, as the existing material was, in her view, sufficient. In addition, she claimed that her older daughter could be traumatised further by the conducting of the reports. On 6 February 2018 the applicant lodged an application requesting that G.S. be ordered to cooperate in the conducting of the reports, as well as for further time to be 16. On 6 December 2018 G.S. requested the replacement of the expert appointed by decisions no. 420/2017 and 3551/2017. Her application was rejected by decisions no. 2755/2019 and 2757/2019 of 9 May 2019. On 19 March 2019 the applicant requested that the report conducted be supplemented with a new one and that additional time be given for its I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 5 completion. His request was rejected by decision no. 2757/2019 of 9 May 2019 of the One-Member Court of First Instance. B.Social welfare report 17. The social welfare report ordered by decision no. 420/2017 of 2 May 2017 of the One-Member Court of First Instance was not initially conducted for reasons relating to G.S. In particular, under various pretexts, she refused to cooperate in the conducting of the report and then sent an extrajudicial document claiming that she had applied to the courts to revoke the relevant order for its drawing up and that they therefore should wait. In that document, it was clear that G.S. had moved from Kifissia municipality to Oropos municipality and that the social services of Kifissia municipality therefore no longer had local jurisdiction. They informed the Athens Court of First Instance and the public prosecutors office, which transferred the file to the social services of Oropos municipality. 18. On 21 November 2019 a social worker from Oropos municipality submitted social welfare report no. 96. G.S. had insisted on the social worker visiting her parents home, even though she had moved in the meantime to Tinos, as she was visiting that house regularly with her children. A visit took place in the presence of G.S.s mother, the two children and a couple of family friends who were visiting. G.S. told the story of her meeting the applicant and the circumstances surrounding their divorce. The social worker concluded her 19. Following receipt of the relevant file on 9 December 2019, two days later the Tinos public prosecutor ordered social services to conduct a social welfare report. In a report dated 29 May 2020, the social worker described that he had encountered many difficulties in its drawing up as the mother had refused to cooperate and that eventually she and her own mother had impeded him from having private conversations with the two children. The visit took place at G.S.s declared home; however, the social worker verified that the mother and the children lived elsewhere on the island. From the brief conversation he had with the youngest daughter, as well as with G.S., the social worker concluded that: (a) both children were affected by the parents dispute and should be monitored by mental health professionals, I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 6 move to Tinos, which was by then an established situation, could be to the childrens benefit. C.Reports by the child psychiatrist 20. On 12 December 2018 the court-appointed expert child psychiatrist, Ms E.C., submitted her reports, nos. 384 and 385/2018. In the decisions appointing her, she was requested to express her view on (a) what the general psychological situation was of the children and how that was assessed in view of their age, maturity and personal and social circumstances; (b) what the 22. Lastly, the expert concluded that G.S. should be examined by a psychiatrist for possible mental disorders and personality disorder. Moreover, the psychiatrists report on the children that had been ordered by the courts and had never been done should be conducted, and the applicants contact with his daughters should be urgently reinstated. I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 7 23. The applicants technical advisor made similar conclusions, highlighting G.S.s unwillingness to cooperate for the needs of the report, which indicated her lack of cooperation in general and the applicants wish to find a solution and have his relationship with his children reinstated. 24. Following the social welfare report conducted by Tinos social services, on 27 August 2020 the prosecutor requested a psychological and psychiatric evaluation of G.S and the two children. Despite multiple efforts by the competent services, these examinations were not conducted owing to the persistent refusal of G.S., who even refused to reveal her real address. On 4 November 2020 the prosecutor reminded G.S. that in the event of non-compliance with the order, she risked being prosecuted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. Following delivery of judgment no. 152/2021 of the 14 above), the prosecutor revoked the order for a psychiatric evaluation of G.S. and the children. V.PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING G.S.S MOVE TO TINOS ISLAND 25. In mid-July 2019 G.S. and the children moved to the island of Tinos. On 2 September 2019 she lodged a request for a provisional order with the president of the Court of First Instance, seeking to amend decision no. 10569/2015 of the One-Member Court of First Instance with regard to the place of pick-up and drop-off of the children. In particular, she asked that the applicant collect his children from Tinos police station. The president of the 26. On 12 February 2020 the One-Member Court of First Instance delivered judgment no. 1059/2020. The court held that G.S. had custody of the girls and therefore had the right to choose their place of residence. In addition, she had found a job and the cost of living on Tinos was lower, and the girls had been attending school and had continued all their activities. They 27. Moreover, according to a document sent by Tinos police station, during 2019, G.S. appeared with her children fourteen times at the police station, that is, on 12 September, 19 September, 22 September, 3 October, 5 October, 10 October, 31 October, 7 November, 10 November, I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 8 14 November, 21 November, 24 November, 12 December and 15 December, in order for the applicant to pick up his children. The applicant appeared only once, on 5 October 2019. That day, the children refused to go with him. Each time, the police recorded the relevant incident in their incident log, as required by law, as the police at Kifissia police station had also done while G.S. was still living in Athens. 28. The applicant also submitted that on 24 July 2020 he had sent a mobile telephone to G.S. to give to their children, along with an extrajudicial document informing her that he would be calling them every Wednesday and Saturday from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. His telephone calls were never answered. VI.ACTION TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES A.The public prosecutor 29. By an application dated 20 January 2014, the applicant requested assistance from the public prosecutor, submitting that G.S. had lodged an urgent request for custody of the children and requesting maintenance, falsely claiming that he had abused his children. Following this, file no. 640/2013 was created. 30. On 6 March 2014 the public prosecutor invited both parents before him to resolve their differences, where they expressed their views and worries alienated themselves from him. The public prosecutor made strict recommendations to the mother to not impede the applicants contact with their children in the context of the relevant judicial decision. G.S. seemed to agree and mentioned that their older daughter A. had been receiving counselling from the counsellor at the nursery she had been attending. 31. On 1 February 2016 G.S. attended the public prosecutors office, where she received advice on how to communicate with the father and on 32. On 2 March 2016 the applicant lodged a further application with the public prosecutors office, in which he reported that his contact with his children had up to then been taking place regularly on the basis of decision no. 10569/2015 of the One-Member Court of First Instance, but that in the incident log the police had reported that the children refused to have contact with him. He further sought advice as on 18 February 2016 he had been unable to pick up his daughters and their mother had refused to leave them with his mother and sister. 33. On 7 March 2016 the public prosecutor ordered that the social services of Kifissia municipality provide counselling to G.S. On 21 March 2016, I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 9 however, G.S. provided the public prosecutor with documents proving that she had already been receiving counselling privately, so the order dated 7 March 2016 was revoked. On 28 March 2016 the public prosecutor ordered that the applicant receive counselling from Gonis, an organisation for parental equality. 34. On 9 September 2016 the applicant lodged an application with the public prosecutors office, in which he protested against the recording in the incident log of his childrens refusal to go with him on the days he exercised his right to contact with them and requesting the appointment of a child psychiatrist to verify the reasons behind this refusal. For his latter request, the 35. On 14 June 2018 the applicant lodged a further application with the public prosecutors office, reporting that his ex-wife was obstructing his contact with his children in breach of decision no. 10569/2015 of the 36. On 9 July 2018 the public prosecutor again called G.S. to his office in order to make strict recommendations for her not to obstruct the applicants 37. On 7 January 2019 the applicant requested a copy of the report that the organisation Gonis had drawn up for him (see paragraph 33 above). 38. In January and February 2019 the applicant complained to the public 39. On 20 November 2019 the applicant lodged a further application with the public prosecutors office, requesting the prosecutors intervention for the I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 10 40. On 23 February 2021 the applicant informed the public prosecutor for minors that G.S. kept moving the children so as to avoid the social welfare report being drawn up on the living conditions of the children. That request was rejected three days later and after communication with G.S.s lawyer for lack of jurisdiction, as G.S. was living with the children on Tinos. 41. On 13 July 2021 the applicant requested the Syros public prosecutor 42. The Syros public prosecutor, who was supervising the execution of judgment no. 152/2021, was informed by the police that the mother and the children had appeared on 26, 28 and 29 April 2022 but the father had not. He then ordered a preliminary investigation concerning the breach of judgment no. 152/2021. B.Other domestic authorities 43. On 19 June 2018 the applicant submitted a document to Kifissia police station, which had been designated as the place of pick-up and drop-off of the children, describing his inability to exercise his contact rights and requesting to be allowed to have contact with his children at least at the police station without G.S. and her mother being present. He further requested that all appropriate measures be taken to enforce his contact rights. He did not receive a reply. 44. On 6 November 2019 the applicant submitted a request to the Minister 45. On 7 November 2019 he submitted a similar request to the Cyclades Police Headquarters, also adding that he would like mental health professionals to be present during pick-up and drop-off of the children. They replied to him by email that he should address his request to the public prosecutors office, or else the social services of Tinos municipality and the police station, which would then send his request to the public prosecutor. 46. On 20 November 2019 the applicant submitted a request to the Greek Ombudsman, describing his alienation from his children and requesting assistance so that he be able to exercise his contact rights with his daughters, then aged 12 and 7 and a half respectively. On 30 January 2020 the Greek I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 11 could be judged by the courts pursuant to Article 169A of the Criminal Code. Even in cases in which the children refused to see the parent, judges were 47. On 25 November 2019 the applicant submitted a similar request to the Minister of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights in which he stated that he received no reply. According to G.S.s submissions, that request was transferred to the Syros public prosecutors office and the applicant was informed on 17 January 2020. 48. On 24 December 2019 the applicant submitted a request to the Oropos municipality, referring to older requests he had submitted in February to 49. From July 2021 the applicant submitted various requests to the social services of Tinos municipality and the Cyclades Police Headquarters, arguing that he was still unaware of the childrens actual place of residence and requesting assistance with his communication with them, without receiving any reply. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 50. The relevant domestic law may be found in Fourkiotis v. Greece (no. 74758/11, 39-42, 16 June 2016). 51. In addition, the following provisions of the Civil Code (as in force at the time the domestic decisions were delivered and replaced on 16 September 2021 by Law no. 4800/2021) are pertinent: Article 1518 Custody of a person Custody of a child shall include, in particular, his or her upbringing, supervision, Article 1520 Personal communication The parent who does not live with the child shall have the right of personal communication with him or her. The parents shall not have the right to impede the childs communication with his or her ascendants except for serious reasons. In the I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 12 Article 1532 Consequences of improper exercise of custody If the father or mother violates the duties imposed on them by their role of custody of the child or the administration of his or her property, or if they exercise this role improperly or are unable to fulfil it, the court may, if requested by the other parent, the childs closest relatives, the public prosecutor or of its own motion, order any appropriate measure. The court may, in particular, deprive one of the parents of the exercise of parental care in whole or in part and award it exclusively to the other parent or, if the latter also falls under the conditions of the previous paragraph, entrust actual care of the child or even custody in whole or in part to a third party or appoint a guardian. 52. In addition, by Law no. 4714/2020 of 31 July 2020, Article 1519 of the Civil Code was changed as follows: A change of the childs place of residence, which substantially affects the right of communication of the parent with whom the child does not reside, requires the prior agreement of the parents or a prior final court decision at the request of either parent. The court may order any appropriate means. 53. Article 232A of the Criminal Code, as in force until 30 June 2019, provided for the punishment of a person who did not comply with a court decision. The new 169A of the Criminal Code, as in force since 1 July 2019, provides as follows: 1. Anyone who has not complied with a provisional order or provision of a civil court decision or prosecutorial order, concerning … the exercise of parental care, communication with the child … shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three (3) years or a fine … THE LAW I.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 54. The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the domestic decisions granting him contact rights with his children constituted a breach of his right to respect for his family life enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 13 the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. A.Admissibility 1.The Governments arguments 55. The Government submitted that there were various domestic remedies that the applicant had not made use of. In particular, judgment no. 10569/2015 had provided that G.S. had to tolerate the applicants contact with his children or else she would be temporarily imprisoned for a month and would have to pay EUR 300 each time she breached the order. However, 56. The Government also argued that the applicant had lacked victim status at the time of lodging his application with the Court, namely on 14 April 2020. At that time, judgment no. 10569/2015 of the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance had been replaced by judgment no. 1059/2020 of the same court as regards the place of pick-up and drop-off of the children. In addition, the social welfare report and psychological report 57. The Government further argued that the application had been lodged prematurely. It had been lodged on 14 April 2020, even though the hearing I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 14 Those two decisions had definitively resolved the issues of custody and contact rights. The applicant should therefore have waited for the outcome of those proceedings before lodging his application with the Court, as he had already been aware of the hearings scheduled before the courts. 2.The applicants arguments 58. The applicant, relying on the Courts case-law, submitted that the remedies mentioned by the Government were coercive measures considered, in general, to be inappropriate and ineffective for the enforcement of the decision granting him contact rights. In addition, they were very time-consuming and thus ineffective in cases such as his, in which time had 59. As regards his alleged lack of victim status, the applicant argued that his complaint concerned the continuous lack of communication with his children, despite the decisions granting him the relevant right. The change of the place of pick-up and drop-off of the children by a subsequent decision did not therefore affect his complaint. 60. Lastly, as regards the Governments objection that his application was premature, the applicant repeated that his complaint before the Court concerned the non-enforcement of judgment no. 10569/2015 of the Athens One-Member Court of First Instance. Against that decision, no remedies had been available; the main actions lodged by him concerning the final 3.The Courts assessment 61. The general principles concerning the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies have been summarised in 23. %4 and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, 69-77, 25 March 2014, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, 65-69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV. 62. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that it has already considered the remedies provided for by Article 950 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 1532 of the Civil Code to be ineffective in situations similar to that of the applicant (see Fourkiotis v. Greece , I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 15 no. 74758/11, 68, 16 June 2016). In this regard, the Court repeats that in cases concerning childcare, the effectiveness of a measure is to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation. Proceedings relating to the award of parental responsibility or contact rights of the non-cohabiting parent, including the enforcement of a final decision, require urgent handling as the 63. As regards the remedy provided for by Article 1532 of the Civil Code, the Court notes that it refers to improper exercise of custody by one parent, and provides for the possibility of any suitable measure, such as the award of custody to the other parent. It further notes that the Government did not provide any examples of such a remedy being successful owing to the cohabiting parent impeding contact of the other parent. Moreover, the 64. In addition, the Court notes that the applicant complained before it about a continuous situation, rather than a specific decision of the domestic authorities. Given that, in such circumstances, the only effective remedy would have been the one capable of addressing a continuing situation, the Court finds that the remedies mentioned by the Government are not appropriate for such situations and that, consequently, the applicant did not have to resort to them. To hold otherwise in the circumstances of this particular case would amount to excessive formalism and a burden on him, especially having regard to the importance from the viewpoint of Article 8 of 65. Concerning the applicants victim status, the Court notes that the applicants complaint refers to the question of the implementation of the right to contact in accordance with the conditions laid down by the court. Moreover, domestic decisions on parents contact rights with their children are, in general, not definitive and can be amended at any time depending on I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 16 events related to the disputed situation. The evolution of the domestic procedure is therefore the consequence of such non-final nature of the decisions relating to the right to contact. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant has not been able to fully exercise his right of contact at least since 2016 and that he lodged his application in 2019 after approaching the domestic courts on several occasions, complaining about a situation which 66. Lastly, as regards the Governments objection that the application is premature, the Court notes that the main proceedings concerning the final 67. The Court notes that the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.Merits 1.The applicants submissions 68. The applicant submitted that the State had failed to comply with its positive obligation to secure his right to respect for his family life by failing to enforce judgment no. 10569/2015 granting him contact rights and judgments nos. 3551/2017 and 420/2017 ordering the social welfare report and child psychiatrists report. 69. He had been unable to exercise his contact rights since 26 January 2016. Since then, G.S. had manipulated the children, who had been at an age easily affected by their mothers views and had refused to see him. Moreover, after G.S.s move to Tinos, decisions had imposed impossible contact conditions on him as he had been requested to go to the island three times per I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 17 71. The measures ordered by the public prosecutor, such as counselling or recommendations to G.S., had been automatic and stereotypical, inappropriate for fulfilling the authorities obligation to intervene to restore communication with his children. The authorities had ordered them, without a personalised examination of the situation, and had not supervised their execution. The recommendations had been addressed to her lawyer, as G.S. had failed to appear, whereas in respect of counselling, the authorities had never verified the credentials of the doctor or the content of the private counselling G.S. had said she had been receiving. 72. The applicant further highlighted that the authorities had done nothing or very little to conduct the social welfare report and child psychological report ordered by judgments nos. 3551/2017 and 420/2017. Even when they 18 and 22 above). Faced with obstructions and a total lack of cooperation on the part of the mother of his children, the authorities had taken no action and the judgments in favour of the applicant had remained ineffective before they got revoked at G.S.s request, almost a year after the measures had been ordered. 73. Lastly, the applicant complained that the police had kept recording in their incident log that his children refused to see him. However, in his view, the refusal had been caused by the mothers actions. The recording of the 74. In reply to the third partys comments (see paragraphs 80- 83 below), the applicant contended that G.S.s intervention should be declared inadmissible as, in his view, she had not confined herself to the legal and factual aspects of the case in order to assist and enlighten the Court, but had included characterisations and was driven by feelings of revenge against him. He also submitted that G.S.s request to intervene had not been lodged in time and therefore should not be accepted. As regards the content of the intervention, the applicant submitted, relying mostly on the social welfare report dated 29 May 2020, that all of G.S.s statements were misleading and should not be taken into account, as proved by all the documents adduced by him and the Government. He also submitted that any subsequent information from the social services of Tinos municipality was unreliable, as G.S. had been in a romantic relationship with the deputy mayor, who was its head. Contrary to G.S.s submissions, the applicant had gone numerous times to I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 18 2.The Governments submissions 75. The Government argued that the authorities had taken all the necessary measures to comply with their positive obligation under Article 8 76. As regards the applicants contact with his children, the Government submitted that at the time of delivery of judgment no. 10569/2015 and for a short period afterwards, the applicant had been exercising his contact rights as regulated by that judgment. The childrens refusal to go with him could not be attributed to his alienation from them, as from the evidence in the case file it was clear that his daughters, especially the eldest, had already refused to have contact with him from the beginning of 2014. 77. The authorities had done everything in their power to restore 78. Lastly, as regards the decisions ordering a social welfare report and child psychiatrists report, they had both been enforced before the applicant had lodged the present application with the Court and the relevant conclusions had been submitted to the courts. In view of the above, the Government submitted that the authorities had made every possible effort, in I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 19 79. The Government further submitted that the authorities had not been in 3.The third partys comments 80. The childrens mother, G.S., first submitted that the applicant was not entitled to complain about the non-execution of decision no. 10569/2015 as that decision had been superseded by others. Moreover, numerous proceedings were still pending before the national courts. She further argued that the applicant had tried to mislead the Court by presenting the authorities as inactive in order to conceal his true intentions, which were to take money from her family. She contested the applicants submissions that the authorities had not assisted him and maintained that, in her view, the applicant had not really wished to maintain contact with his daughters and had been violent towards her and their elder daughter. 81. In particular, G.S. submitted that the social services of Oropos municipality had conducted a social welfare report at her home and concluded that it was a luxurious art-filled mansion with a swimming pool, that the childrens living conditions were ideal and above average and that they were well-behaved children with views of their own. In addition, G.S. submitted that the applicant was trying to mislead the Court by stating that he had never received a reply to his request dated 25 November 2019 to the Ministry of Justice. The relevant department, however, had transferred the request to the Syros public prosecutors office for their urgent action and the applicant had been informed. The Syros public prosecutor had taken various measures to supervise execution of the order granting the applicant contact rights, 82. As regards the psychiatric report of 12 December 2018, G.S. submitted that it could in no way be considered reliable, given that the expert I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 20 83. G.S. concluded that the applicants violent behaviour, lack of interest and the fact that he had not shown up to Tinos police station to have contact as per the courts orders were the reason he did not have a relationship with his daughters. The children had been living for four years on Tinos Island, had excellent living conditions and were performing well in all school and after-school activities. Contrary to the applicants allegations, her place of residence was known to the authorities, as proven by the document issued by Tinos municipality. The applicant had engaged judicial and administrative authorities while misleading them, but ultimately the domestic authorities had dismissed his complaints and revoked the relevant orders, after a thorough investigation in which his false statements had been revealed. Nevertheless, the applicant had still insisted on requesting the authorities to proceed with actions no longer based on valid orders. 4.The Courts assessment 84. The Court notes that the present case concerns the non-enforcement of judicial decisions whereby the applicant was granted contact rights. As a result, he was unable to see his children or establish regular and meaningful contact with them. The relevant principles regarding the States positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention in cases concerning the enforcement of contact rights are summarised in the case of , 4 v. Croatia (no. 27148/12, 88-89 and 92-95, 2 April 2015, and the cases cited therein). Therefore, in the present case, the Courts task consists of examining 85. The Court observes that at least since January 2016 the applicant has not been able to have contact with his children, despite the domestic decisions granting him that right. For as long as the place of pick-up and drop-off was designated as Kifissia police station, the children appeared there but refused to go with him (see paragraph 12 above). After G.S. moved permanently to the island of Tinos, the applicant could not follow the contact schedule, which I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 21 had remained unchanged since they all lived in Athens, and did not appear regularly at the police station, where G.S. appeared to drop off the children (see paragraph 27 above). From the evidence in the case file, it seems that the applicant went to Tinos police station once, but the children refused to go with him, so he left without contact taking place. 86. The domestic courts tried to establish the reasons behind the childrens refusal to have contact with the applicant. In particular, decision no. 3551/2017 ordering a psychiatric evaluation of the children included a 14 above). The Court takes note of its conclusion that the childrens behaviour had been influenced by both parents, as well as of the fact that it 87. The Court further notes that the applicant had alerted the authorities to the difficulties he encountered in his contact with the children already since the beginning of 2016 (see, for example, paragraphs 32, 34 and 35 above concerning the relevant requests to the public prosecutor in 2016 and 2018 and paragraph 13 above concerning the decision dated 2 May 2017 ordering 12 above). 88. In reply to the applicants complaints to various authorities, the domestic courts and the public prosecutor ordered on multiple occasions counselling, psychiatric evaluations, social welfare reports and recommendations in respect of G.S. and the children (see paragraphs 13 and 29 to 89. In particular, the interview for the purpose of the social welfare report ordered on 2 May 2017 did not take place at the mothers and childrens place of residence, but at G.S.s parents home. The Court cannot agree with G.S. 18 above). After the lodging of the present application, the Syros public prosecutor ordered a new social welfare report (see paragraph 19 above). However, not even this report I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 22 was conducted at the childrens actual place of residence, which the mother refused to reveal, despite the fact that the applicant tried to draw the prosecutors attention to that matter (see paragraph 39 above). Nevertheless, 90. The same considerations apply to the psychological evaluation of the children ordered by the domestic courts on 2 May 2017. Despite the multiple 20 above). Even so, the domestic courts 22 above). Even the additional psychological and psychiatric report ordered by the Syros public prosecutor 24 above). The Court takes notes of G.S.s submissions that the applicants technical advisor had been indicted for issuing a medical certificate without examining her or the children. However, the Courts conclusions are based on the report submitted by the court-appointed expert and not by the applicants technical advisor. 91. The Court further notes that G.S. moved in mid-July 2019 to the island of Tinos without the applicants prior knowledge or consent. It takes note of the courts conclusion that G.S. had custody of the children and therefore had the right to decide on their place of residence (see paragraph 26 above). At the time, new Article 1519 of the Civil Code, which required, before a change in place of residence that affected contact rights, the other parents agreement or a final domestic decision, was not yet in force (see paragraph 52 above). 11 above as to the contact schedule and paragraph 69 above I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 23 for the applicants argument in this regard). That added difficulty could not possibly have facilitated his contact with his daughters. 92. The Court reiterates that it is not for it to substitute its assessment for 85 to 91 above). In particular, it notes that the applicant has continuously tried to establish contact with his daughters since 2016, that their contact stopped taking place and that, despite the various decisions and recommendations of the domestic courts and the public prosecutor, the authorities have not found a solution to allow him to regularly exercise his right to contact. The prosecutors recommendations to G.S.s representative on 9 July 2018 or his warning of 4 November 2020 (see paragraphs 36 and 24 above) had no effect on G.S., who continued to prevent the applicant from exercising his contact rights and impeded the carrying out of the reports that would shed light to the living circumstances and psychological state of the children. This behaviour has continued to date despite the new judgments delivered in 2020 and 2021 which defined a new contact schedule for the applicant. It follows that the authorities tolerated G.S.s behaviour, who resisted complying with their orders without facing any consequences, to the point that they were deprived of their effect. 93. Admittedly, the authorities faced a very difficult situation which 94. The Court also takes note of the Governments argument that the applicants inability to regularly see his children was the result of the childrens strong resistance already persisting since 2014. In this regard, the Court finds it important to reiterate that while its case-law requires childrens views to be taken into account, those views are not necessarily immutable and their objections, which must be given due weight, are not necessarily sufficient to override the parents interests, especially in having regular contact with their child (see, mutatis mutandis , Raw and Others v. France , no. 10131/11, 94, 7 March 2013). The right of a child to express his or her I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 24 C. v. Finland , no. 18249/02, 57-59, 9 May 2006); such interests normally dictate that the childs ties with his or her family must be maintained, except in cases where this would harm his or her health and development (see, for example, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, 136, ECHR 2010). What is more, if a court based a decision on the views of children who are palpably unable to form and articulate an opinion as to their wishes for example, because of conflicting loyalties and/or their exposure to the alienating behaviour of one parent such a decision could run counter to Article 8 of the Convention (see K.B. v. Croatia , cited above 143, with further references). 95. Lastly, with regard to the swiftness of the proceedings, the Court observes that judgment no. 152/2021, which inter alia 96. Having regard to the facts of the case, including the passage of time, the best interests of the children, the criteria laid down in its own case-law and the parties submissions, the Court, notwithstanding the States margin of appreciation, concludes that the Greek authorities have failed to take all the necessary measures which could reasonably be required of them to enforce the applicants right to have contact and to establish a relationship with his daughters. 97. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. II.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 98. Article 41 of the Convention provides: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols 99. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 100. The Government replied that the requested amount was excessive and that the mere finding of a violation would constitute sufficient compensation for the applicants alleged violation. I.S. v. GREECE JUDGMENT 25 101. The Court finds that the applicant must have sustained non- pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 7,500 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 102. The Court also notes that the applicant did not submit any claims for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court and thus makes no award under that head. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1. Declares the application admissible; 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 3. Holds (a)that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 2 of the Convention, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non- pecuniary damage; (b)that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until 4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 May 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga ChernishovaPere Pastor Vilanova Deputy RegistrarPresident