June 2025 – Father’s Child Communication Rights Violated: Giannitsa Court Ruling

Issuance of Judgment No. 593/2025 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Giannitsa – Claim for breach of court decision accepted, specifically for breach of visitation rights in the form of obstruction of a father’s right to communicate with his minor child.

Following a lawsuit filed by our client against his former spouse – the mother of their minor child – requesting a judicial confirmation of the breach of a prior court decision (which regulated his visitation rights with their minor son), and seeking her conviction to a monetary penalty and personal detention, pursuant to the provisions of the violated decision, Judgment No. 593/2025 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Giannitsa (Special Procedure for Property Disputes) was issued, by which the claim of our client was upheld.

Specifically, under Article 1520 of the Greek Civil Code, the parent with whom the child does not reside retains both the right and the obligation to maintain the broadest possible personal contact with the child. Matters concerning visitation are to be regulated either by written agreement between the parents or by court order. Furthermore, the parent with whom the child resides must facilitate and promote the child’s communication with the other parent on a regular basis. Any obstruction of the above visitation right, when done with the intent to prevent or frustrate the right, incurs the sanctions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 950 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure. Such violation is proven through a specific Certification Report drawn up by a bailiff, who is present at the designated start time of the scheduled visitation between the aggrieved parent and the child.

The Court, after assessing our arguments and the evidence presented, specifically found that: “From the behavior of the minor, it is demonstrated—according to the lessons of common experience and logic—that during the above-mentioned video call, the defendant did not allow visual and auditory contact between the minor and the plaintiff, as she activated the computer camera merely for the minor to appear in the call, but made no effort to adjust the sound or image settings so the child could hear and see the plaintiff. […] Consequently, it was proven that the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to communicate with their minor child via the online application ‘Skype’ during the specific times set by the aforementioned decision. […] The defendant’s omission to ensure proper image and sound settings constitutes a violation of her obligation to tolerate the plaintiff’s communication with the child.”

Moreover, the Court also identified the defendant’s intent to commit the said violation, stating: “Her intention was to prevent the plaintiff’s communication with their minor child, despite the fact that she had previously been served with a copy of the […] decision, along with the execution order, and therefore she was aware that she was required to voluntarily comply with the provisions of that decision, which is enforceable under the rules of compulsory execution.”

As a result, the Court confirmed that the defendant indeed committed the above-mentioned violation, upheld our client’s claim, ordered the defendant to pay a monetary penalty of €800.00, and imposed one (1) month of personal detention.