62. The Court refers to the general principles regarding the State’s positive obligations regarding the right to parental contact, which are described in the Vishnyakov case (cited above, §§ 35-37, with subsequent references). These principles also apply to cases where disputes arise between parents and / or other family members of their children regarding contact and residence in relation to children (see Mitovi, cited above, § 55, and N.Ts. and Others v. Georgia, no. / 12 § 70 fine, 2 February 2016), even though the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren is different in nature and degree from that between father and child, and therefore may by nature require less protection ( see Mitovi, cited above, § 58).
63. In this case, the child’s father and grandparents on the father’s side alleged that they were prevented from trying to maintain contact with the child (who lived separately from them, with the mother). In response to the applicants’ allegations, the courts found that they had indeed been hindered: accordingly, they had established contact schedules (see paragraph 8 above). The enforcement of these court decisions was to be ensured by state executors. However, the Court doubts that the domestic authorities took all reasonable steps to ensure respect for the applicants’ family life.
64. First, although the courts established a timetable for contact with the child’s father, its execution was suspended for significant periods by further court decisions (see paragraphs 11, 13, 16, 18 and 24 above). Given the seriousness of such measures and their long-term effect, the courts are required to give appropriate and sufficient reasons in their decisions to demonstrate that they were not arbitrary.
However, in their reasoning, the courts refer to any specific circumstances justifying these measures or explain how the suspension of the contact arrangements was in the interests of the child (in contrast to Sousse v. Germany, no. 40324/98, § 90 et seq., 10 November 2005, and Buchleither v. Germany, no 20106/13, § 46 et seq., 28 April 2016).
65. Secondly, there is nothing to indicate that during the periods when the enforcement proceedings were in progress, the authorities had ever considered establishing mechanisms for monitoring the voluntary execution of the decision. In addition, it remains unclear to what extent child and family services could have been involved in this regard and any kind of family mediation could have been applied. At some point, the bailiffs decided that the local childcare authority should join the enforcement proceedings (see paragraph 21 above), but there was no indication that this childcare authority had any influence on the implementation of the agreements on contact.
66. Thirdly, as regards the behavior of the government officials, it appears that they came to contact meetings on several occasions to document the fact that the child did not want to communicate with her father and his grandparents. The domestic court criticized the limited scope of the perpetrators’ interference as a violation (see paragraphs 33 and 34 above). The Court reiterates that the child’s right to express their views should not be interpreted as effectively granting children an unconditional veto power without considering any other factors and conducting an examination to determine their best interests; in addition, such interests usually dictate that the child’s ties with his family must be maintained, except in cases where this could harm their health and development (see AV v. Slovenia, paragraph 878/13, paragraph 72, 9 April 2019 , with subsequent links). However, in this case, when the authorities were constantly faced with the refusal of a very young child to see his family members, they were unable to provide professional targeted support for the child; such support was critical for her to get used to the idea of regular meetings with her father and grandparents, and for V. to understand what was in the child’s best interests, in accordance with the reasons for the binding court decisions (see paragraph 8 above). Such assistance constituted, in the specific circumstances of this case, part of the necessary measures the authorities must reasonably take in accordance with their positive obligations under Article 8 (see Similar approach, AV, cited above, § 84).
67. Finally, even though voluntary compliance is best, the entrenched positions often taken by parents in such cases can complicate such compliance, which in certain cases requires the use of proportionate coercive measures (see paragraph 43, with further references) … In this regard, the bailiffs imposed fines on V. (see paragraph 14 above), but it is doubtful that the amount of these sanctions was significant enough to have a proper coercive influence on V. (cf. Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 105, 15 January 2015).
68. The Court has found in cases against Ukraine that inappropriate enforcement of court decisions concerning arrangements for contact with children is the result of the absence of any developed legal and administrative framework that could facilitate voluntary compliance mechanisms regarding family and childcare workers. … In addition, the existing laws did not provide for appropriate and specific measures to ensure, subject to the principle of proportionality, the enforcement of contact agreements (see the aforementioned Vishnyakov cases, § 46 and Shvets, § 38; see also Bondar v. Ukraine ([Committee] no. 7097/18, § 36, 17 December 2019) The Court considers that these findings are equally relevant to the present case.
In this case, one should take into account:
1. Part 5 of Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Execution of Decisions and Application of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights» provides that the Representative Body shall act as the Claimant in cases of compensation for losses caused to the State Budget of Ukraine as a result of payment of compensation, which is obliged within six months from the moment specified in the fourth part of Article 8 of this Law, apply to the court with a corresponding claim. The general limitation period for handling such claims is determined in accordance with the Civil Code of Ukraine (435-15).
Articles 10-14 of this law provide for both Additional individual measures and General Measures, should be taken by the Representative Body (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Justice of Ukraine), the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and other state authorities.
Article 16 of the same Law provides that in case of non-compliance or improper implementation of the Decision, the perpetrators
officials, whose powers this execution relates, bear administrative, civil or criminal responsibility provided for by the laws of Ukraine.
