CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 20 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61984/17 Aminat MAKHMUDOVA against Russia lodged on 15 August 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Aminat Makhmudova, is an Estonian national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Haabneeme, Estonia. She is represented before the Court by Ms O.V. Sadchikova, a lawyer practising in Stavropol. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background of the case On 12 October 2006 the applicant married a Russian national, Mr A. On 27 September 2010 and 8 March 2014 she gave birth to two sons. The children hold joint Russian and Estonian nationality. The children lived in Estonia with the applicant and visited A. in the Republic of Dagestan, Russia, during the spring and the summer. Subsequently A. was granted an Estonian residence permit and lived partly in Estonia and partly in Russia. In August 2015 the applicant informed A. about her intention to divorce him. A. threatened to take the children from her. She hid the children’s passports. However, in the beginning of 2016 A. obtained new passports for the children from the Estonian Department of the Police and the Border Guard Service. On 4 February 2016, when the applicant was at work, A. took the elder son from home and the younger son from kindergarten and brought them to Dagestan. 2.     Proceedings in Estonia On 9 February 2016 the applicant applied to the Estonian Ministry of Justice for assistance in securing the return of the children in accordance with the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), to which both Estonia and Russia are parties. On 11 February 2016 the Harju County Court, as a first measure to legally protect the applicant, partially suspended the applicant’s and A.’s joint parental responsibility for the children. The applicant was granted the right to determine the children’s place of residence and A. was ordered not to take the children out of Estonia. A. was further ordered to return the children to that State. On 5 July 2016 the applicant’s and A.’s marriage was dissolved. The children’s residence was determined as being with the applicant. A. was granted contact rights. 3.     Proceedings in Russia On 4 March 2016 the applicant went to Dagestan to try to resolve the conflict peacefully, without success. The mediation conducted by the Federal Institute of Mediation in Moscow did not yield any results either. The applicant lodged an application with the Pyatigorsk Town Court of Stavropol Region (“the Town Court”), seeking the children’s return to Estonia on the basis of the Hague Convention. On 20 July 2016 the Town Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered the children’s immediate return to the place of their habitual residence in Estonia. A. was obliged to hand over the children’s Russian and Estonian passports to the applicant within a week of the finalisation of the judgment. On 20 January 2017 the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. The judgment was not enforced by A. voluntarily. On 17 March 2017 the applicant submitted a writ of enforcement to the Federal Bailiffs Service and communicated to the bailiffs the addresses where the children might be found. On 3 April 2017 the Bailiffs Service of the Republic of Dagestan instituted enforcement proceedings. By a letter of 10 April 2017 bailiff M. informed the applicant that she needed to appear on 22 May 2017 in Makhachkala for the carrying out of the enforcement actions. On 22 May 2017 the applicant accompanied by her lawyer arrived in Makhachkala, however, the enforcement could not take place as A. had left together with the children. On 24 May 2017 the applicant lodged a complaint in respect of the bailiff’s actions and the inefficiency of the handling of the enforcement proceedings with the head of the Bailiffs Service of the Republic of Dagestan. No breach of law was however found in the actions of the bailiff. On 18 June 2017 the bailiff informed the applicant that the children’s place of residence in Makhachkala had been identified and enquired as to when the applicant would arrive in Makhachkala for the carrying out of the enforcement actions. On 21 June 2017 the applicant asked the Bailiffs Service to carry out enforcement without her participation and to secure the children’s transfer to Moscow. She undertook to cover all travel expenses for the children and two accompanying adults. The applicant’s request was dismissed on an unspecified date. On 12 July 2017 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Bailiffs Service about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 20   July 2016. On 27 July 2017 she requested that the head of the Federal Bailiffs Service ensure that the enforcement proceedings be conducted by an external enforcement team (группа принудительного исполнения) with the involvement of bailiffs from the Federal Bailiffs Service. On the same date the applicant lodged a challenge to the decisions of the bailiffs of the Makhachkala Bailiffs Service, whom she alleged to have been deliberately sabotaging the enforcement proceedings. To date the judgment of 20 July 2016 remains unenforced. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the failure of the Russian authorities to secure the enforcement of the judgment of 20 July 2016 ordering the return of her children to Estonia. She further complains that the enforcement proceedings were ineffective and financially very burdensome for her. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? More specifically, have the Russian authorities taken all the necessary measures that can reasonably be demanded in the circumstances of the present case to facilitate the enforcement of the judgment of 20 July 2016 on the return of the applicant’s children?   The Government are invited to submit a detailed account of all the measures taken by the Russian authorities with a view to securing the return of the applicant’s children in compliance with the judgment of 20   July 2016.   The Government are further invited to submit a comprehensive account of all the measures available to the Russian authorities – including measures available to bailiffs, the police, welfare authorities and so on – to secure the enforcement of judgments in circumstances as those in the present case.