CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sF259B6B7 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s3F717125 { font-family:Arial; color:#339966; display:none } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s14567F15 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8074E569 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s245ADC1D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0.05pt; font-size:10pt } .s9BAF625A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s21DFFE47 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA5F256BE { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s70CBDF6C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s656F94E2 { margin-left:42.55pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:left; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s2FB7E578 { width:22.09pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE4259511 { width:29.72pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s73B74C9F { width:23.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFE441939 { width:15.42pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5927BFBD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:left }   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6033/13 A.H. AND OTHERS against Russia and 22 other applications (see list appended) ITMarkFactsComplaintsStart STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants are nationals of the United States of America (the US applicants), prospective adoptive parents of children nationals of Russia, who are also indicated as applicants. The applicants in cases nos. 6033/13, 8927/13, 9417/13, 10490/13, 10549/13, 12275/13, 23879/13, 23890/13, 26309/13, 29191/13, 29197/13, 32224/13, 32331/13, 32351/13, 32368/13, 37173/13, 38490/13, 42289/13, 42340/13 and 42403/13 are represented before the Court by lawyers of the International Protection Centre based in Moscow, Russia. The applicants in case no. 27161/13 are represented before the Court by Irina O’Rear, a lawyer practising in Russia. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     General background (a)     Adoption procedure In 2010-2012 the US applicants started proceedings for adoption of a child from Russia. They have complied with the requirements set by the United States authorities having obtained a favourable conclusion concerning their living and financial conditions and their suitability to adopt a child. Some of the applicants had to comply with additional requirements established by the Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Regarding Cooperation in Adoption of Children (“Bilateral Agreement on Adoption”) upon its entry into force on 1   November 2012. They then applied to the Russian competent authorities who, in most cases, provided them with information on children available for adoption. In all cases the US applicants received a positive conclusion from the Russian authorities concerning both the impossibility to transfer the child to a Russian family and their suitability to be the adoptive parents. They received a referral to visit the child concerned as part of the adoption procedure, which enabled them to spend several days with him or her in the orphanage. They visited the children; according to the US applicants, they formed a bond with them and confirmed their consent to adopt them. In some cases, according to the US applicants, they formed a bond with the child prior to having initiated the adoption procedure, and in one case the situation concerned adoption of a brother of a previously adopted girl (cases nos. 23890/13, 37173/13 and 42340/13, see the specific circumstances below). In such cases the adoption procedure initially concerned a particular child. Many of the prospective adoptive children suffer from serious health issues and require specialised medical care. It appears that as of December 2012 the US applicants completed all the steps of the adoption procedure required prior to submitting the application for adoption to a court. However, on 21   December 2012 the Russian State Duma adopted the Federal Law no. 272-FZ on Measures in respect of Persons Involved in a Breach of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Rights and Freedoms of Nationals of the Russian Federation (“Law no.   272 ‑ FZ”), which, inter alia , banned the adoption of Russian children by nationals of the United States. The law entered into force on 1 January 2013. Those US applicants who had submitted the application for adoption to a court before 1 January 2013 and had had hearings scheduled for the end of January-February 2013 received information about the hearings being rescheduled for an earlier date in January 2013. Most of them were not able to attend the hearings because of short notice. The courts then discontinued the adoption procedure relying on Law no. 272-FZ. Some of the applicants appealed. It is not clear whether the appeal hearings took place. The applications for adoption submitted by the US nationals after 1   January 2013 were rejected on procedural grounds also with reference to Law no. 272-FZ. Where the application was submitted on behalf of the US applicants by an adoption agency, it was rejected on the ground that as the agency’s activity had been banned it could not submit the application to the court. Where the application was submitted by another representative, it was rejected because it could only be submitted by an adoption agency. It is not clear whether all the US applicants eventually submitted an application for adoption to a Russian court. In April-May 2013 the US applicants received letters from the Ministry of Education and Sciences informing them that pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ their names were removed from the State data bank containing information on prospective adoptive parents which meant that they could no longer be considered as such. In spring-summer 2013 some of the US applicants received information about their prospective adoptive children being transferred for adoption to other families.   (b)     Circumstances surrounding the entry into force of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption and Law no. 272-FZ On 13 July 2011 the United States and the Russian Federation signed the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption setting out the procedure for intercountry adoption between the two States. It entered into force on 1 November 2012. On 21 December 2012 the Russian State Duma adopted and on 28   December 2012 the President signed Law no. 272-FZ, also known as the “Anti-Magnitsky Law” or “Dima Yakovlev Law” due to the circumstances underlying its adoption. In the first place, the law has been described as a response to the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 passed by the United States Congress in November-December 2012 and signed by the United States President on 14 December 2012 (“Magnitsky Act”). The Magnitsky Act imposed sanctions on Russian officials who were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who had exposed an alleged large-scale tax fraud involving State officials and subsequently died in custody. The Magnitsky Act prohibited the Russian officials their entrance to the United States and the use of the United States’ banking system. The list of eighteen persons concerned was made public by the Administration of the President of the United States. Russian authorities considered a response envisaging passing a similar act in respect of the United States nationals responsible for gross human rights violations, prohibiting their entry into Russia and freezing their assets within Russia. However, Section 4 § 1 of Law no. 272-FZ also introduced a ban on adoptions of Russian children by the United States nationals. The provision appears to have come about in the aftermath of the death in 2008 of Dima Yakovlev, a Russian toddler adopted by United States nationals. He was left alone for nine hours being strapped into his adoptive father’s car as the latter forgot to bring him to daycare service. The father was eventually acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. This news produced a stir in Russian media and highlighted a number of abuse cases involving Russian children adopted by the United States nationals, which entailed calls on the part of certain Russian authorities to either restrict or end adoptions by nationals of the United States. At the same time as the introduction of the ban, according to Section 4 §   2 of Law no. 272-FZ, Russia terminated the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption. As under Article 17 of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption it remains in force until one year from the date that one of the State-Parties informs the other Party of its intention to terminate the Agreement, this caused confusion concerning the validity of the agreement and the outcome of the pending adoption cases involving prospective adoptive parents from the United States. On 28 December 2012 the United States Department of State released a statement concerning the adoption of Law no. 272-FZ which read, insofar as relevant: “We deeply regret Russia’s passage of a law ending inter-country adoptions between the United States and Russia and restricting Russian civil society organizations that work with American partners. American families have adopted over 60,000 Russian children over the past 20 years, and the vast majority of these children are now thriving thanks to their parents’ loving support. The Russian government’s politically motivated decision will reduce adoption possibilities for children who are now under institutional care. We regret that the Russian government has taken this step rather than seek to implement the bilateral adoption agreement that entered into force in November. We are further concerned about statements that adoptions already underway may be stopped and hope that the Russian government would allow those children who have already met and bonded with their future parents to finish the necessary legal procedures so that they can join their families.” On 1 January 2013 Law no. 272-FZ entered into force. During a briefing on 8 January 2010, the United States Department of State Spokesperson said that Russia had informed the United States of its intention to suspend the bilateral adoption agreement. On 10 January 2013 news agencies, including BBC and RIA-Novosti, reported that the Press Secretary of the Russian President stated that the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption remained in force on that date and that it would remain valid through early January 2014. On the afternoon of the same day the Russian Ministry of External Affairs posted a comment on its website stating that Russia had terminated and not just suspended the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption and that a note to this effect had been handed over to the United States Embassy in Moscow on 1   January   2013. On 13 January 2013 about twenty thousand people went out in the streets of Moscow to take part in the action called March Against Scoundrels so as to protest against Law no. 272-FZ. The law was also criticised by human rights organisations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and received numerous negative reactions from the media, including Time, Economist and The Guardian. According to most of the criticism, the law was politically motivated and detrimental to the children’s interests. On 15 January 2013 forty-eight members of the United States Congress sent a letter to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, on behalf of the United States families affected by Law no. 272-FZ. The letter requested exemption for the families that were in the final stages of the adoption procedure and invited Russia to re-join the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption. On 22 January 2013 the Russian Supreme Court issued a letter instructing the lower courts to allow the transfer of Russian adopted children into families of the United States nationals where a decision on adoption had been taken prior to 1 January 2013 even if it entered into force after that date. It appears that proceedings in all cases involving prospective adoptive parents from the United States where a decision on adoption had not been delivered before 1 January 2013 were halted irrespective of the stage of the proceedings. On 2 July 2013 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) adopted a Resolution on Intercountry Adoption, where it called on the member-States “to recognize the foundational bond between prospective adoptive parents and the child and to honor and protect these nascent families” and urged them “to resolve differences, disputes, and controversies related to intercountry adoptions in a positive and humanitarian spirit” so as “to avoid any general, indiscriminate disruption of intercountry adoptions already in progress that could jeopardize the best interests of the child, harm the nascent family, or deter prospective adoptive parents from pursuing an intercountry adoption”. Although Russia was not specifically referred to in the Resolution, it was introduced by the United States Senator Roger Wicker precisely as a response to the ban on adoptions by the United States nationals. According to a news report by RIA Novosti of 5 July 2013, the Russian Ministry of External Affairs called futile any attempts of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to make Russia annul the previously adopted decisions concerning intercountry adoption, the latter being in full compliance with international law. 2.     Specific circumstances 1.     Application no. 6033/13 lodged on 22 January 2013 by three groups of applicants. (a)     First group of applicants: A.J.H., born on 16 May 1976, and J.A.H., born on 26 June 1977, who live in Vaughn, Montana, United States (the US applicants), and D.M. who was born on 17 August 2009 and lives in Lobnya, the Moscow Region. D.M. suffers from Down syndrome, delayed psychological and speech development, congenital heart disease, cerebral ischemia of third degree and flat-footedness. He was prematurely born. Having completed the required steps for the intercountry adoption, the US applicants obtained the referral to visit D.M. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They spent five days with him in September   2012. Subsequently the application for adoption was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing initially scheduled for January 2013 was rescheduled for February 2013, following which it was again rescheduled for 30 January 2013. On the latter date the adoption procedure was discontinued on the ground that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt D.M. The US applicants appealed. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 14 May 2013. It is not clear whether it took place. (b)     Second group of applicants: G.D.C. who was born on 14   August   1980 and lives in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States (the US applicant), and E.G. who was born on 28 May 2010 and lives in St.   Petersburg. E.G. is developmentally delayed, she is HIV positive and suffers from ectopic dermatitis. The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit E.G. from the Ministry of Education and Science, she spent several days with her in November 2012. The application for adoption, submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court, was rejected on 13   February 2013 on the ground that the US applicant’s representative, E.F., could not represent her as the application could only be submitted through an authorised agency. The US applicant appealed. On 2   April 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court dismissed the appeal. At the same time the US applicant resubmitted the application through another representative, O.T. On 21   March 2013 the second application was rejected for the same reasons. The US applicant appealed. On 12 April 2013 the St.   Petersburg City Court dismissed the appeal. (c)     Third group of applicants: J.M., born on 1   June   1981, and A.M., born on 14   April   1982, who live in Gainesville, Georgia, United States (the US applicants), and V.T. who was born on 30   September 2008 and lives in Mytischy, the Moscow Region. V.T. is developmentally delayed, he suffers from Down syndrome, hearing loss, heterotropy, intrauterine hypoxia, congenital heart disease (he underwent heart surgery in 2009 where an electric cardiostimulator was implanted), and a number of other illnesses. The US applicants, who have two biological and one adopted child, initiated the procedure to adopt another child in March 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit V.T. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent five days with him in October 2012. The application for adoption was subsequently submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing initially scheduled for January 2013 was rescheduled for 12   February 2013, following which it was again rescheduled for 31 January 2013. On the latter date the adoption procedure was discontinued on the ground that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt V.T. The US applicants appealed. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 14   May 2013. It is not clear whether it took place. 2.     Application no. 8927/13 lodged on 4   February   2013 by J.J., born on 12   December   1983, and Jn.J., born on 25   January   1984, who live in Dover, New Jersey, United States (the US applicants), and A.M. who was born on 27   January   2007 and lives in Moscow. A.M. is HIV positive, suffers from heart murmur, ocular hypertension rhinitis and has medical issues with her eyes. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in March 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit A.M. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent four days with her in November 2012. Subsequently the application for adoption was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing was scheduled for 8 February 2013. However, the court then rescheduled the hearing for 31 January 2013. On the latter date the court rejected the request to postpone the hearing and discontinued the adoption procedure. The US applicants appealed. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 14 May 2013. It is not clear whether it took place. 3.     Application no. 9417/13 lodged on 5 February 2013 by S.K.L., born on 11   October   1972, and M.D.L., born on 23 September 1969, who live in Fairview Heights, Illinois, United States (the US applicants), and S.M. who was born on 17 May 2009 and lives in Malakhovka, the Moscow Region. S.M. suffers from Down syndrome, hip deformity, heart septum defect, hyperplasia of the thymus gland, obstructive pulmonary disease, inborn femur deformity, dermatitis, anaemia and allergies. The US applicants have a biological daughter who suffers from Down syndrome. Wishing to provide another child with similar needs with the same care and opportunities, they initiated the procedure for adoption of a child with special needs in April 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit S.M. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent four days with her in December 2012. Subsequently the application for adoption was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. On 30 January 2013 it rejected the request to postpone the hearing and discontinued the adoption procedure on the ground that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt S.M. The US applicants appealed. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 14 May 2013. It is not clear whether it took place. 4.   Application no. 10490/13 lodged on 11 February 2013 by J.V. who was born on 16 June 1980 and lives in Grove City, Ohio, United States (the US applicant), and I.K. who was born on 28   August   2011 and lives in Volgograd. I.K. was prematurely born and had prenatal contact with HIV and Hepatitis C. She had developmental delays and suffers from an open oval window of the heart, a false cord of a left ventricle and partial atrophy of the ophthalmic nerve. The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit I.K. from the Ministry of Education and Science, she spent six days with her in November 2012. On 5   December   2012 the application for adoption was submitted to the Volgograd Regional Court. On 4 February 2013 the adoption procedure was discontinued on the ground that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicant had no right to adopt I.K. On 15   February 2013 the US applicant appealed. On 20 February 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court stayed the proceedings concerning the complaint and instructed the US applicant to correct certain deficiencies by 20 March 2013, in particular, to submit an original power of attorney for the representative. It is not clear whether the appeal was eventually examined. 5.   Application no. 10549/13 lodged on 11   February   2013 by J.E.L., born on 1 June   1962 and A.M.L., born on 4 February 1972, who live in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, United States (the US applicants), and S.T. who was born on 29   November   2011 and lives in Volgograd. S.T. had prenatal contact with HIV and Hepatitis C. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit S.T. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent six days with her in October 2012. On 3 December 2012 the application for adoption was submitted to the Volgograd Regional Court. On 1 February 2013 the adoption procedure was discontinued on the ground that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt S.T. On 15 February 2013 the US applicants appealed. On 20 February 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court stayed the appeal proceedings and instructed the US applicants to correct certain deficiencies by 20 March 2013. It is not clear whether the appeal was eventually examined. 6.   Application no. 11327/13 lodged on 13 February 2013 by A.N., born on 9   June   1980, and B.N., born on 16 February 1980, who live in Germantown, Maryland, United States (the US applicants), and T.S. who was born on 16   January   2009 and lives in St.   Petersburg. T.S. suffers from Down syndrome, planovalgus deformity and hyperopia. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in August 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit T.S. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent several days with him in October 2012. Application for adoption was submitted to the St.   Petersburg City Court in November 2012. It was returned to the US applicants’ representative E.F. on 28   December   2012, which precluded the applicants from going ahead with the adoption. On 12 and 28 March and 3 April 2013 the US applicants’ representative O.T. requested a copy of the St. Petersburg City Court’s ruling on application of the US applicants. However, the file was not in the registry and the copy was not provided to her. On 11 April 2013 O.T. resubmitted her request to Judge G. and the President of the St.   Petersburg City Court. In a letter of 16 April 2013 Judge G. refused to provide her with a copy of the ruling. On 22 April 2013 O.T. submitted a complaint against the refusal. The US applicants never received any court decisions in respect of their application. 7.   Application no. 11672/13 lodged on 14   February   2013 by C.E.H., born on 17 April 1974, and M.S.H., born on 27   August   1976, who live in Scottsdale, Arkansas, United States (the US applicants), and K.P. who was born on 2   August   2012 and lives in Vidnoye, the Moscow Region. The US applicants had previously adopted a child from Russia in 2006. As they wished their son to have a sibling also of Russian ancestry, they initiated the procedure for adoption of another child from Russia in February 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit K.P. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent several days with her in November   2012. Subsequently the application for adoption was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court, and a hearing was initially scheduled for 22   January 2013. On 14 January 2013 the US applicants were instructed not to travel to Moscow as the hearing had been postponed. On 8   February   2013 they were informed that the adoption procedure had been discontinued on 30   January 2013 on the ground that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt K.P. The US applicants appealed. It appears that the appeal hearing was scheduled for 14 May 2013. It is not clear whether it took place. 8.   Application no. 12275/13 lodged on 18   February   2013 by nine groups of applicants. (a) First group of applicants: M.S.P., born on 15   May   1974, and A.N.P., born on 6 March 1980, who live in Papillon, Nebraska, United States (the US   applicants), and A.A. who was born on 21 June 2005 and lives in St.   Petersburg. A.A. suffers from Down syndrome, moderate mental deficiency, strabismus, planovalgus deformity, delay in development, umbilical hernia and enuresis. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in August 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit A.A. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent three days with her in October 2012. The application for adoption was submitted to a court on 20   December   2012. On 3 April 2013 the US applicants learned from their representative O.T. of a court ruling dated 24   December 2012 accepting the withdrawal of the application by the US applicants’ representative E.F. The US applicants complained against the ruling arguing that they had never requested their representative to withdraw the application and that the power of attorney did not empower her to do that. They received no response. (b) Second group of applicants: D.S.G. who was born on 29 May 1974 and lives in New York, New York, United States (the US applicant), and O.N. who was born on 24 June 2011 and lives in St. Petersburg. O.N. suffers from prenatal encephalopathy, umbilical hernia, farsightedness, perinatal insufficiency, enlarged liver and atopic dermatitis. The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit O.N. from the Ministry of Education and Science, she spent four days with her in December 2012. On 11   February 2013 the application for adoption was submitted to a court through an adoption agency. On 14 February 2013 the court rejected the application having stated that according to Law no. 272-FZ the work of US adoption agencies was banned and they were not authorised to submit applications for adoption. The US applicant appealed on 4 March 2013. On 18 April 2013 she asked the court, by fax, to send the ruling concerning her appeal to her representative I.-Y. She received no response. (c) Third group of applicants: B.C., born on 13 June 1965, and J.W.S., born on 4 January 1955, who live in Sag Harbor, New York, United States (the US applicants), and A.R. who was born on 24 March 2010 and lives in St.   Petersburg. A.R. was left by her parents, who suffered from substances addictions, at the age of eleven months. She was Hepatitis C positive, had enlarged liver and spleen and developmental delays. The US applicants had two children, a son and a daughter. After their daughter had died of paediatric cancer at the age of twelve, they decided to adopt a child as their son did not wish to be the only child. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in February 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit A.R. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent five days with her in November-December 2012. On 11   February 2013 the application for adoption was submitted to a court through an adoption agency. On 14   February 2013 the court rejected the application having stated that according to Law no. 272-FZ the work of US adoption agencies was banned and they were not authorised to submit applications for adoption. The US applicants appealed on 4 March 2013. It is not clear whether the appeal has been examined. (d) Fourth group of applicants: T.L.B.-S. who was born on 21 June 1968 and lives in Oltown, Maryland, United States (the US applicant), and V.O. who was born on 7   August 2005 and lives in St. Petersburg. The US applicant has two biological children and a son adopted from Russia. She decided to adopt another child and appears to have initiated the adoption procedure in early 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit V.O. from the Ministry of Education and Science, the US applicant spent several days with her in November 2012. The adoption file was completed in December 2012. However, the application for adoption was not submitted to the court because of the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. (e) Fifth group of applicants: S.M., born on 12 May 1966, and K.M., born on 30 April 1968, who live in lake Elsinore, California, United States (the US applicants), and V.G. who was born on 19 December 2005 and lives in St.   Petersburg. V.G. suffers from Down syndrome. Having obtained the referral to visit V.G. from the Ministry of Education and Science, the US applicants spent three days with her in July 2012. The application for adoption was submitted to a court on 26 November 2012 by the US applicants’ representative E.F. According to the applicants, several days before 1 January 2013 a judge called E.F. and asked her to withdraw the application, even though E.F.’s power of attorney did not authorise her to do so. Several days later E.F. found out that the application was “lost” and the only record of submission was a note in the court’s register. On 12   and 28   March and 3 April 2013 the applicants’ representative O.T. requested a copy of the St. Petersburg City Court’s ruling on the application of the US applicants. However, the file was not in the registry and the copy was not provided to her. On 11 April 2013 O.T. resubmitted her request to Judge G. and the President of the St. Petersburg City Court. In a letter of 16 April 2013 Judge G. refused to provide her with a copy of the ruling. On 22   April 2013 O.T. filed a complaint against the refusal. It is not clear whether the complaint has been examined.   (f) Sixth group of applicants: J.R.V., born on 3 January 1973, and M.L.V., born on 27 May 1973, who live in Aurora, Colorado, United States (the US applicants), and Dz.L. who was born on 13 July 2010 and lives in St.   Petersburg. Dz.L. suffers from perinatal CNS affection of Hypoxic and ischemic genesis, astigmatism of both eyes, abnormal gall bladder, atopic dermatitis, dysplasia of the skin surface on the sole of her foot, food allergies and speech delay. She also had perinatal contact with Hepatitis C. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit Dz.L. from the St. Petersburg Committee of Social Politics, they spent two days with her in December   2012. On 18 February 2013 the application for adoption was submitted to a court on the US applicants’ behalf by a private person. It was rejected on 19   February 2013 apparently on the ground that it could only be submitted by an authorised adoption agency. The US applicants appealed. It is not clear whether the appeal has been examined. (g) Seventh group of applicants: Q.S., born on 8 April 1979, and W.S., born on 6 May 1980, who live in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States (the US applicants), and D.K. who was born on 26 May 2011 and lives in Perm. D.K. suffers from Down syndrome because of which she was abandoned after birth by her biological parents. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in July 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit D.K. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent three days with her in December 2012. It appears that the adoption file was completed in December 2012. However, the application for adoption was not submitted to the court because of the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. (h) Eighth group of applicants: S.A.K. who was born on 9 May 1960 and lives in Chicago, Illinois, United States (the US applicant), and K.R. who was born on 31 May 2009 and lives in St. Petersburg. The US applicant previously adopted a girl from Russia. She decided to adopt another child and initiated the adoption procedure in May 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit K.R. from the Ministry of Education and Science, the US applicant spent several days with him in November   2012. On 11 February 2013 the application for adoption was submitted to a court through an adoption agency. On 13 February 2013 the court rejected the application having stated that according to Law no. 272-FZ the work of US adoption agencies was banned and they were not authorised to submit applications for adoption. The US applicant appealed on 4   March 2013. It is not clear whether the appeal has been examined. (i) Ninth group of applicants: C.B., born on 1 December 1967, and T.B., born on 23 October 1966, who live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States (the US applicants), and A.E.A. who was born on 22 August 2011 and lives in Perm. A.E.A. suffers from CNS affection of hypoxic genesis, open oval window, umbilical hernia and psychomotor development delay, and had prenatal contact with HIV and Hepatitis C. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in May 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit A.E.A. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent five days with her in November 2012. The completed adoption file was received by a local adoption coordinator. It is not clear whether the application was eventually submitted to a court as apparently the US applicants could not obtain the relevant information from their adoption agency. 9.   Application no. 23879/13 lodged on 7 April 2013 by L.C., born on 25   November   1974 and S.C., born on 9   November   1975, who live in Los   Angeles, California, United States (the US applicants), and I.A. who was born on 26   June   2011 lives in St. Petersburg. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in November 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit I.A. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent three days with him in November 2012. The application for adoption was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court on 18   February   2013 by the US applicants’ representative, a private person. On 19   February 2013 the court rejected the application without examination on the ground that it could only be submitted by an authorised adoption agency. 10.     Application no. 23890/13 lodged on 5 April 2013 by M.W., born on 2   February   1961, and D.W., born on 17   March   1964, who live in Woodstock, Virginia, United States (the US applicants), and M.K. who was born on 21   March   1998 and lives in Chelyabinsk. The US applicants were involved in charity work in the Chelyabinsk Region since 2001. In particular, they helped with renovations of an orphanage where in 2008 they met M.K. As they developed a close relationship with him, in the winter of 2011-2012 they decided to adopt him and initiated the adoption procedure. On 11 December 2012 their application was rejected by the Ministry of Education and Science on the ground that it was submitted by the US applicants directly and not by an authorised adoption agency. The US applicants were recommended to re-apply through an agency. The adoption procedure was eventually halted by the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 11.   Application no. 26309/13 lodged on 18   April   2013 by C.Z., born on 29   October   1974, and S.Z., born on 2   October   1976, who live in Simpsonville, South Carolina, United States (the US applicants), and A.K. who was born on 8   November   2008 and lives in Zelenogradsk. A.K. has approximately eighteen months’ developmental delay and a speech development delay; he suffers from enuresis, flat-footedness, open window in his heart and allergies. A.K. was taken from his home by social workers in August 2011 as he had been neglected and possibly abused by his parents. The US applicants previously adopted a boy from Russia. They initiated the procedure for adoption of another child in April 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit A.K. from the Ministry of Education and Science, the US applicants spent four days with him in October 2012. They submitted the application for adoption to the Kaliningrad Town Court, and the hearing was scheduled for 17   January 2013. On 28 December 2012 they were informed that the hearing had been cancelled due to the adoption of the Law. 12.     Application no. 27161/13 lodged on 11   April   2013 by S.S., born on 13   March   1978, and G.S. born on 30   January   1982, who live in Shirley, Florida, United States (the US applicants), and E.O. who was born on 14   September   2009 and lives in Perm. E.O. is HIV positive. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in March 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit E.O. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent seven days with her in September 2012. On 10   October 2012 the Ministry of Education and Science confirmed that it appeared impossible to place the child into a family of Russian nationals living in Russia. The application for adoption was finalised by 28   December   2012. However, it is not clear whether it was eventually submitted to a court. 13.     Application no. 29191/13 lodged on 29   April   2013 by A.M., born on 13   January   1966, and M.M., born on 14 October   1966, who live in Barrington Hill, Illinois, United States (the US applicants), and G.Sh. who was born on 13   September   2011 and lives in St. Petersburg. G.Sh. has an additional chord of the left heart ventricle. He suffers from mild hypermetropic astigmatism, cerebral ischemia and malnourishment. He also has developmental and speech delay. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in January 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit G.Sh. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent several days with him in November 2012. Shortly afterwards the US applicants completed the file so as to submit the application for adoption to a court. It is not clear whether the application was eventually submitted as apparently the US applicants could not obtain the relevant information from their adoption agency which closed shortly after the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 14.     Application no. 29197/13 lodged on 29   April   2013 by C.M.S. who was born on 27   February   1967 and lives in New York, NY, United States (the US applicants), and A.N. who was born on 9   December   2011 and lives in St. Petersburg. At birth A.N. had the umbilical cord wrapped around his throat which led to a number of complications. He suffers from congenital heart disease, open foramen oval; congenital renal disease, pyelectasis; neonatal encephalopathy with seizures and conditions caused by the central nervous system ischemia. He also has motor and speech delay. The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in early 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit A.N. from the Ministry of Education and Science, she spent three days with him in December 2012. The application for adoption was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court on 20   December   2012. It is not clear whether it was examined. 15.     Application no. 32224/13 lodged on 13   May   2013 by R.K.B., born on 21 December   1969, and T.B., born on 7   December   1973, who live in Wetumpka, Alabama, United States (the US applicants), and V.B. who was born on 3   March   2012 and lives in Volgograd. The US applicants previously adopted a girl from Kazakhstan. In September 2011 they initiated the procedure to adopt another child from Russia. Having obtained the referral to visit V.B. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent seven days with her in December 2012. It is not clear whether the application for adoption was submitted to a court as apparently the US applicants could not obtain the relevant information from their adoption agency which closed shortly after the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 16.     Application no. 32331/13 lodged on 16   May   2013 by D.M.L., born on 25   February   1972, and De.M.L., born on 7 November 1968, who live in Omaha, Nebraska, United States (the US applicants), and R.P. who was born on 19   February   2012 and lives in Vladivostok. R.P. was prematurely born. He suffers from prenatal encephalopathy of anoxic-ischemic genesis, an anomaly of heart development, and anomaly of development and narrowing of palpebral fissure. He also has an additional chord of the left heart ventricle. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in January 2012. Having obtained the referral to visit R.P. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent seven days with him in December 2012. It is not clear whether the application for adoption was eventually submitted to a court. After the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants contacted numerous authorities seeking possibilities to complete the adoption procedure. 17.     Application no. 32351/13 lodged on 16   May   2013 by J.F.B., who was born on 24   October   1966 and lives in Boston, Massachusetts, United States (the US applicant), and M.I. who was born on 18 April 2011 and lives in Vsevolzhsk, the Leningrad Region. M.I. was prematurely born and has speech and psychomotor development delay. She suffers from congenital heart defect: open oval window. The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in July 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit M.I. from the Ministry of Education and Science, she spent several days with her in October 2012. The US applicant then submitted the application for adoption to the Leningrad Regional Court. On 25 December 2012 the court stayed the proceedings due to certain shortcomings in the documents submitted. In particular, in the certificate confirming that the US applicant had taken the required training for prospective adoptive parents her middle name was not indicated, hence the court doubted whether the certificate was actually issued to her. Furthermore, the validity of the certificate concerning her housing conditions expired on 7 November 2012 and therefore she had to renew it. The court instructed the US applicant to rectify this by 28   February 2013. However, on 17 January 2013 the Leningrad Regional Court discontinued the adoption proceedings and returned the application without examination on the ground that pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ the US applicant did not have a right to adopt M.I. Therefore, it was immaterial whether she could rectify the shortcomings indicated earlier. The US applicant appealed. It is not clear whether the appeal was examined. 18.     Application no. 32368/13 lodged on 16   May   2013 by L.A.P., born on 3   March   1966, and J.N.T., born on 5   August   1971, who live in Long Beach, NY, United States (the US applicants), and K.K. who was born on 24   August   2010 and lives in St.   Petersburg. K.K. was abandoned at birth by her mother who was a drug addict. She is HIV positive and suffers from hepatitis. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit K.K. from the Ministry of Education and Science, they spent three days with her in February 2012. Subsequently the St. Petersburg City Court would not accept the application for adoption until the entry into force of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, following which the US applicants had to comply with additional requirements introduced by the Agreement. Later they also had to provide proof that their house had not been affected by the hurricane Sandy that had hit the Northeastern United States in October 2012. The application for adoption was eventually submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court on 22 May 2013. On 23 May 2013 the court returned the application without examination on the ground that it was submitted by private persons acting on the US applicants’ behalf, whereas it could only be submitted through an authorised agency. The US applicants appealed. It is not clear whether the appeal has been examined. 19.     Application no. 37173/13 lodged on 7   June   2013 by J.W.H., born on 29   July 1981, A.M.H., born on 18 March 1969 (the US applicants) and G.N.Y.H., who live in Smartsville, California, United States, and V.B. who was born on 14 November 2001 and lives in Prokopyevsk. On 5 July 2010 the US applicants adopted the third applicant, G.N.Y.H. As a result of what appears to be a clerical mistake, the information on her siblings had not been included in the State data bank, and it was at a later stage that the US applicants learned about her brother who was still in an orphanage, V.B. The US applicants then started making enquiries with a view to adopt V.B. as well. On 19 July 2011 they received a letter from the prosecutor’s office of the Kemerovo Region stating that it would be possible to adopt V.B. if they were willing to do so. The US applicants then initiated the adoption procedure. At the same time they started corresponding with V.B. and sent him letters, photos and parcels. In June 2012 the US applicants informed the local authorities that they wanted to meet V.B. However, because of a number of events unrelated to the US applicants, including a local investigation with respect to the regional authorities and adoption in July 2012 of a regional act banning adoption of children by US nationals, repealed on 6   December   2012, the US applicants were not able to meet him. When all these issues seemed to be resolved, in December 2012 the US applicants prepared the application for adoption to be submitted to a court. It is not clear whether it was eventually submitted. The US applicants have been staying in contact with V.B. by telephone. 20.     Application no. 38490/13 lodged on 12   June   2013 by A.B., who was born on 24 July 1964 and lives in Sierra Vista, Arkansas, United States (the US applicant), and Ye.L., who was born on 23   July   2009 and lives in Novosibirsk. Ye.L. was prematurely born. He suffers from hearing loss and has speech development delay. He also suffers from respiratory ailments and requires special medication. The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in 2008. As the adoption agency’s licence was eventually revoked, she had to restart the procedure in 2011. Having obtained the referral to visit Ye.L. from the Ministry of Education and Science, the US applicant spent four days with him in July 2012. The application for adoption was finalised on 10   December 2012. It is not clear whether it was submitted to a court. 21.     Application no. 42289/13 lodged on 30   June