CASE OF G.S. v. GEORGIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
5. The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine. 6. The applicant lived with her partner, a dual Georgian-Ukrainian national, Mr G. Ch., in Kharkiv. On 29 July 2004 their first child, L., was born; he was registered in Ukraine at the applicant’s address and acquired Ukrainian citizenship. 7. Some time in mid-2005 G. Ch. left Ukraine for Russia. L. continued to live with his mother and attended a pre-school educational institution in Kharkiv. 8. In 2005 and 2006 G. Ch. visited the applicant and L. twice. In September 2006 the applicant gave birth to another child of the couple, T. 9. On 22 July 2010 T. died in an accident. She fell from an open window of an apartment. L., who had apparently witnessed the tragic incident, started receiving psychological help in the form of dolphin-assisted therapy. 10. On 30 July 2010 the applicant allowed G. Ch. to take their son for the first time to Georgia for the summer holidays. She signed a document authorising G. Ch. to travel with L. to Georgia and Russia between 30 July 2010 and 28 February 2011. According to the applicant, L. was expected to return to Kharkiv by the end of August in order to start in September at a primary school in which he had been pre-enrolled. 11. On 13 August 2010, the applicant learned when talking on the telephone with her son that the latter would not be returning to Ukraine and would be staying in Georgia. For two months the applicant tried to persuade her former partner to allow their child to return to Ukraine, to no avail however. It appears that soon after this G. Ch. left for Russia, while L. stayed in Georgia with his uncle, G. Ch.’s brother, and his grandfather. G. Ch. travelled occasionally to Georgia to see his son. 12. On 16 November 2010 L. was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and began having outpatient treatment. 13. On 22 March 2011 the Kievskiy District Court of Kharkiv ordered L.’s return to Ukraine. The court ruled that L.’s place of permanent residence should be that of the applicant. 14. G. Ch. was not apparently informed of the institution of the above proceedings. He did not accordingly appeal against that decision. 15. In October 2010 the applicant initiated child return proceedings under the Hague Convention via the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. On 18 November 2010 the latter contacted the Ministry of Justice of Georgia and requested legal cooperation on the matter. On 2 December 2010 the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, acting as the central authority responsible for the obligations established by the Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of the applicant before the Tbilisi City Court. 16. On 10 February 2011 two social workers went to see L. at the request of the Tbilisi City Court. They visited him at his uncle’s apartment, where he was living with his cousins. According to the report drawn up thereafter, L. was being looked after by his uncle, since his father was mainly based in Russia. The boy spoke Russian, although he had started attending a Georgian school. L.’s uncle told the social workers that L.’s sister had died as a result of their mother’s lack of attention; hence it was dangerous for L. to live with his mother. The social workers also had a short conversation with L. during which he stated that he was happy with his uncle and cousins, and did not want to go back to Ukraine. In conclusion, the social workers noted that L. was living in appropriate living conditions, and that his basic needs were being met. 17. In April 2011 the social workers set up and attended three meetings between the applicant and her son. In the report drawn up thereafter they concluded the following: “On the basis of our intervention, which included visits, conversations with L. and observation of his behaviour, we consider his behaviour to be problematic. In particular, although L. wants to see his mother, and when seeing her expresses his love, warm feelings and happiness, he refuses subsequently to talk to her on the telephone. It should be underlined that when communicating with his mother he is following his father’s prompting and is stressed. Given that L. is living in the family of his uncle and grandfather, he lacks relationship with his parents (since neither of the parents lives with him). In order for a child to develop into a contented and healthy individual, and to have his interests protected, it is necessary for him to communicate with his parents.” 18. In the same report the social workers noted that during one of the meetings they noticed that the boy, prompted by his father, had stopped hugging his mother. This happened twice, until one of the social workers warned G. Ch. to stop doing this. 19. In April L. additionally underwent a psychological examination, which concluded that the boy was suffering from insufficient emotional relationship with his parents. It was noted that L. had a clearly positive attitude towards his father and the paternal family, while with respect to the mother his attitude was twofold: love and warm feelings on the one hand, and anxiety on the other. L. indicated to a psychologist that he wanted to live with his father and his father’s family and wanted his mother to be with them too. In her conclusions about his emotional condition the psychologist noted that the boy’s nervousness, aggression, distrust, and irritability, as well as low self-esteem, were caused by psychological trauma he had suffered in the past, as well as by his current complicated and barely comprehensible situation. 20. On 16 May 2011 the Tbilisi City Court refused the applicant’s request. The court concluded, having regard to the boy’s age and other circumstances of the case, that his return to Ukraine would expose him to psychological risk. It stated in this connection that it would be inappropriate to order the boy’s return to Ukraine, since the applicant had failed to show that she could create a stable environment for her son in which he could be protected from psychological risks related to the separation from his father. The court further noted the following: “The court considers that in the current case, having regard to a psychologist’s report which categorically states that L. suffered a serious psychological injury, it is with high probability that if returned to Ukraine the child would be exposed to “physical or psychological harm or otherwise place[d] in an intolerable situation” (Article 13 of the Convention).” 21. The court dismissed the applicant’s argument that her son was suffering from an adjustment disorder and lacked communication with his parents. It noted in this connection the following: “In view of a psychological examination the court particularly stresses the following – “L. Ch. has revealed ... high level of anxiety ... and fear of the future”, “twofold attitude towards his mother, which implies love and warm feelings as well as strong anxiety,” according to the same report, it was established that [he suffers from] “lack of emotional relationship with both parents” and “positive attitude towards his father and the paternal family” especially towards the grandfather (N. Ch.). The court further particularly underlines the fact that minor L. Ch. expresses the wish to live with his father and the paternal family. At the same time, he wants his mother (G. S.) to stay with them ... The court cannot accept the argument of the requesting party that the child is having adaptation difficulties because of the separation from his mother and because he is being kept in Georgia. The above opinion is not supported by any evidence and is not substantiated ... There is an attempt on the father’s side to take every possible measure ... to treat [the boy’s] psychological condition.” 22. As to the risks related to the boy’s return to Ukraine, the court stated: “Hence, the court considers that the return of L. Ch. to Ukraine (in view of his current condition) would imply his return to an uncomfortable situation, which would result in his psychological stress and would place him at psychological risk, even if he returned to Ukraine with his father. Separation from his father and the paternal family and his return to Ukraine (at this stage) would cause mental deterioration of the child and from a psychological point of view would inevitably create a risk [for the boy]. (The requesting party failed to prove the opposite).“ 23. That decision was overturned on 27 October 2011 by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, which ordered L.’s return to Ukraine. The appeal court observed that L. had been born and had lived in Kharkiv, so he had adapted to the situation in Ukraine. Further, according to the psychological and social welfare reports, the boy was suffering from adaptation difficulties and lacked sufficient communication with his parents. In this connection, the court stressed that L. had indeed suffered psychological trauma as a result of the accidental death of his sister; but, according to the very same reports, he was also suffering because of the situation he was currently in. Hence, it was within the best interests of the child to be reunited with his mother. The court further noted: “The above-mentioned conclusions confirm that the current situation for [the boy] is complicated and hardly comprehensible. Accordingly, in view of the interests of L. Ch., since there is no obvious risk of a negative impact on his mental state if he were returned to his mother, it would be appropriate that he be returned to his parent (the applicant G. S.) and to his habitual place of residence.” 24. As to the death of L.’s sister, the appeal court noted that related criminal proceedings had been dropped, as it had been concluded that it had been a tragic accident. It further noted in connection with the psychological trauma the boy suffered as a result, that “... already traumatised child should not be separated from his parents. This should be viewed as a decision taken in the interests of the child. As was noted in the appealed decision, L. before his arrival in Georgia had been having dolphin-assisted rehabilitation treatment. At the same time, his stay with his mother cannot be harmful to him, since she has been doing an internship at the psychiatric hospital ...” 25. G. Ch. appealed against this decision on points of law, alleging that the court of appeal had incorrectly interpreted the Hague Convention and the facts of the case. On 22 August 2012, without holding an oral hearing, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on points of law, thus reversing the judgment of 27 October 2011. On a general note, in connection with the purpose of the initiated proceedings the court noted the following: “The subject matter of the pending application is the return to Ukraine of a child (L. Ch.) wrongfully retained in Georgia ... The cassation court pays attention to the analysis developed in the preamble of the Convention concerning its aims, according to which the interests of the child are of paramount importance when examining childcare-related issues. At the same time, the High Contracting Parties to the Convention undertook an obligation to provide international protection to children against any harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention. Accordingly, it implies that the procedures provided for by the Convention which aim at the speedy return of a wrongfully removed or retained child to his or her habitual place of residence serve the main purpose of protecting children’s interests. In view of all the above-mentioned, the cassation court when considering the lawfulness of the request to end wrongful retention of a child considers it appropriate within the scope of the appeal on point of law to also examine the issue as to what extent the child’s interests would be protected in the event of his return which together with other factors implies the creation of a safe environment for a child. The above analysis of the cassation court finds its basis in the exceptional clauses of the Convention which in individual cases allow the relevant bodies of the receiving state to refuse the return of a child (Article 13 of the Convention).” 26. The Supreme Court further considered that the applicant had failed to show that the return of L. to the pre-abduction situation would be possible without damaging his interests. Notably, the court concluded: “The cassation court wholly shares the view of the appeal court, according to which L. is suffering from lack of relationship with his parents; accordingly, in order for the child to develop into a contented and healthy individual and to have his interests protected it is necessary for him to communicate with his parents. However, as was noted above, when dealing with this type of case particular attention should be given to the consideration of exceptional circumstances ... The appellant alleges a violation of Article 13 § b of the Convention (there is a serious risk that if returned the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation) and considers that the impugned decision omits the primary reason for L. Ch.’s leaving Ukraine, namely the tragic death of T. Ch. in July 2010, which fact had a negative impact on the psychological condition of L. Ch. ... The cassation court notes the results of the available psychological examination, in which the psychologist along with other issues stressed the high level of traumatisation in L. Ch. as a result of the death of his younger sister. At the same time, the psychologist considers the psychological features observed to be the boy’s reaction to the psychological trauma which he had suffered and to the current barely comprehensible situation. It is noteworthy that even the court of appeal could not omit the fact that as a result of the death of T. Ch. (the sister of L. Ch.) the latter had suffered mental trauma and is as of 16 November 2010 registered at a ... psychiatric institution .... However, the above-mentioned circumstances were not sufficient [for the appeal court] to refuse the return of the boy. The cassation court considers that there is no evidence in the case file which would lead the court to believe that it would be possible to return the child to his pre-abduction environment without damaging his interests. In the opinion of the cassation court, the appellant validly substantiated, on the basis of relevant evidence, the risk factors which are inconsistent with the purposes of the Convention, while the respondent failed to show a higher purpose which could have been achieved by putting an end to the unlawful situation and [she had also] failed to demonstrate that in the event of the child being returned to Ukraine his interests and rights would not be even more violated. Accordingly, bearing in mind that the primary purpose of the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the protection of the interests of a child, the cassation court considers that the appellant has lodged a substantiated complaint.” 27. To conclude, in reference to Article 13 § b of the Hague Convention, the Supreme Court observed that the main purpose of the Hague Convention was the protection of the best interests of a child, and that accordingly, given the well-substantiated risks that L. was facing upon his return to Ukraine, the exception clause should have been invoked. 28. The case file indicates that G. Ch. did not take part in the relevant court proceedings, as he was not in Georgia at the material time. L., according to the case file, is currently living with his uncle and grandfather in Tbilisi.