The representatives of EU in Georgia respond to the case of a European Union’s minor citizen

4 July, 2020

The EU delegation in Georgia in the framework of “the 1980 Hague Convention on the International Aspects of Child Abduction” responds to the case of a EU and Czech juvenile in a Georgia court and notes out that, the support for justice and human rights is on the agenda of cooperation between Georgia and the EU and the representatives of EU in Georgia thanks the organization for informing them about the case. The organization “Young Barristers” received the letter on 24 June, 2020, which is signed by Sanchez Ruiz, the head of the Political Press and Informative Section of the EU representation in Georgia.

“Thank you for your letter and for bringing to out attention the case of the Czech minor Vanessa Anton. Let me assure you that support to justice and human rights’ protection features high on the agenda of cooperation between the EU and Georgia. However, please note that the European Union does not have a mandate on consular matters, which is an exclusive competence of the EU Member States. I would therefore encourage father of underage Vanessa Anton, as a citizen of the Czech Republic, to continue his contacts with the Embassy of the Czech Republic to Georgia that as you inform is already aware of the case” – it is written to the letter towards the head of “Young Barristers”, Archil Kaikatsishvili.

“Young Barristers” explains, that the EU representatives in Georgia were informed on June 3, 2020, in a written way, about the agreed illegal operation of 2 state agencies - LEPL Agency for State Care and Assistance For the (Statutory) Victims of Human trafficking and Tbilisi Police Department Vake-Saburtalo 4th Section, happening on 29 May, 1 and 2 June, which ended in handing and abducting the minor from one legal representative to another legal representative, without considering the will of the minor. In particular, based on the Tbilisi Vake-Saburtalo Regional Centre Head Social/Acting Head Nino Iobashvili’s 30 May, 2020 report, the police, on the grounds of not considering the interests of the child, issued a restraining order, but neither the actions of the Social Service Agency nor the Police officers had legal basis. Therefore, the order was appealed in the court.

According to the June 29, 2020 Tbilisi City Court Administrative Cases Panel’s decision, the EU and Czech republic citizen’s complaint against Tbilisi Police Department Vake-Saburtalo Police 4th Section, was satisfied and 1 June, 2020 restraining order for not considering the interests of the minor has been annulled, as the basis of issuing the order was considered as unjustified and illegal – The 30 May 2020 Report of Tbilisi Vake-Saburtalo Regional Centre and it was determined, that the child’s legal representative, the father, had  been unjustifiably restricted from having relationship with her child for 30 days as a result of a joint operation of mentioned state agencies. Despite the court’s decision, it remain unknown where the minor is as of July 5, 2020, as the mother, Olivia Antony doesn’t show the baby to her husband and doesn’t respect and comply with the court’s temporary decision, determining the rule of relations with the child.

The case was considered in the Tbilisi City Court Administrative Cases Panel, by the judge: Sophio Gagnidze. Witnesses were questioned in the case, due to the danger of bias, the Czech language specialists were avoided, and from the Police the minor’s interrogation protocol was requested. In general, 4 court hearings have been made for that case. The interests of the EU citizen were represented by the “Young Barristers” head, Archil Kaikatsishvili and criminal law lawyer: Nika Sadradze.

To note out: Additionally, Tbilisi Court of Appeals review the case based on “the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to determine, to send the minor back to the Republic of Cyprus or let her stay in Georgia for living purposes. “Young Barristers” got involved in the case in November 2019, after the first instance court’s decision.

 

 



Comments