CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 23 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A891538 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD1313BC6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.85pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF4F12EF6 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }         FIRST SECTION               CASE OF V.P. v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 61362/12)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   23 October 2014     FINAL   23/01/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of V.P. v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 61362/12) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr V.P. (“the applicant”), on 13   September 2012. The President of the Section acceded to the applicant’s request not to have his name disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The applicant was granted leave by the President of the Section to present his own case in the proceedings before the Court. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged that the respondent State had not taken adequate measures to enforce a judgment of a Moldovan court whereby a residence order in his favour had been made in respect of his son, who had been abducted and taken to Russia by the applicant’s former wife. 4.     On 11 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. 5.     On 16 January 2014 the Moldovan Government declared that they would not exercise their right under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule   44 of the Rules of Court to intervene in the proceedings. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chisinau, Moldova. 7.     On 28 October 2006 the applicant married Ms E.P., also a national of Moldova. On 15 June 2007 she gave birth to their son, A.P. At some point relations between the couple deteriorated. As was established by the Moldovan courts in subsequent proceedings, on 24   June 2008 Ms E.P. moved to the town of Cahul, in Moldova, where her parents lived. The boy, A.P., went with her. A.     Divorce and custody proceedings in Moldova 8.     On 22 August 2008 Ms E.P. initiated divorce proceedings before the Rîșcani District Court of Chisinau. She also sought a residence order in her favour in respect of A.P. On 25 September 2008 the applicant filed a counterclaim seeking a residence order in his favour in respect of the child. 9.     On 13 September 2008, while the proceedings were still pending, Ms   E.P. left Moldova with the child and settled in Moscow, Russia. 10.     On 1 October 2008 the court fixed a contact schedule, pursuant to which the applicant was to be allowed to visit his son. 11.     On 10 October 2008 the applicant sought a court order prohibiting Ms   E.P. from leaving the country with the child without his consent. On the same date the court granted the order sought by the applicant. An interim restraining order was issued with immediate effect. 12.     On 28 October 2008 Ms E.P., by letter, informed the court and the police that she was opposed to any contact between the applicant and their son. Her letter was certified by a notary public in Moscow. 13.     On 31 October 2008 Ms E.P. obtained a certificate of “temporary residence registration” with the Russian Immigration Authority in Moscow. In the following months she went through this process several times, obtaining such a certificate for the last time on 26 June 2009. 14.     In the following months Ms E.P. did not take part in the proceedings before the Moldovan courts; however, she was represented by a lawyer. 15.     On an unspecified date the applicant contacted the Moldovan police in order to establish the whereabouts of the child. According to a written reply from the police dated 10 March 2009 (which was apparently based on information provided by Ms E.P.’s parents), the applicant’s son was living with his mother at an address on Nag. Street in Moscow. 16.     According to the applicant, on 27 April 2009 Ms E.P. returned to Moldova with the boy. During their stay in Moldova she allowed the applicant to see the child twice. During one of the visits Ms E.P. informed the applicant that she was living with a new partner, Mr A.G., in Moscow and that she had told her son that Mr A.G. was his father. 17.     On 12 May 2009 Ms E.P. left for Russia again, taking the child with her. 18.     On the same date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Russian police, seeking the institution of criminal proceedings against Ms   E.P. for abduction of their child. A police officer of the Teplyi Stan Police Department questioned Ms E.P. and Mr A.G., and established that Ms   E.P. was not preventing the applicant from seeing his son. The police officer concluded that the situation was within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and that there was no need for the criminal prosecution of Ms E.P. 19.     The applicant contacted the Russian police and asked them to verify whether the child and the mother were in fact living at the address on Nag.   Street. On 24 June 2009 and 29 December 2010 the Russian police informed the applicant that, according to their information, Ms E.P. and her son were not living at that address. 20.     On 22 September 2009 the Rîșcani public prosecutor charged Ms   E.P., in absentia , under Article 207 of the Criminal Code of Moldova. On the same date her name was put on Moldova’s wanted list by the police. 21.     Ms E.P. was represented by two lawyers in the divorce and child residence proceedings before the Rîșcani District Court. According to a letter issued by the District Court, Ms E.P. was properly notified of the hearings, but failed to appear. 22.     On 28 October 2009 the Rîșcani District Court decided the case in favour of the applicant. In its judgment the court analysed the child’s living conditions, the circumstances of separation of the parents, their respective home lives, income, occupation, social habits and so forth. The judgment was upheld at two levels of jurisdiction – on 28 January 2010 and, in the final instance (the Supreme Court of Justice), on 19 May 2010. The judgment of 28 October 2009, as upheld, dissolved the marriage and ordered that the boy’s habitual residence (domicile) for the purposes of his upbringing and education should be with his father (the applicant). 23 .     On 4 December 2009 the Russian police (Teplyi Stan Police Department) detained Ms E.P. in connection with the criminal proceedings which had been opened against her in Moldova, but she was released within a few hours. 24 .     On 18 June 2010 Ms E.P. married Mr A.G. in Moscow. For some time they lived together in Moscow at an address on Bak. Street. Ms   E.P. enrolled the boy in a kindergarten situated in Moscow. She requested the kindergarten not to allow the applicant to see the child. The child was also registered with and started to receive treatment at one of the public polyclinics in Moscow. B.     Attempts by the applicant to obtain a warrant of execution from the Russian courts 1.     First round of enforcement proceedings 25.     On 12 May 2010 the applicant asked the Moscow City Court to issue a warrant of execution on the basis of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28   October 2009. As per the Government’s explanations, the applicant lodged this request not directly, but through the Rîșcani District Court, which, in turn, forwarded it to the Ministry of Justice of Moldova. 26 .     On 4 June 2010 the Ministry of Justice of Moldova, with reference to the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Russia of 25 February 1993, asked the Russian Ministry of Justice to assist the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment of 28 October 2009. They informed the Russian Ministry of Justice that A.P. was living with his mother at an address on Bak. Street in Moscow. 27.     It would appear that, subsequent to her marriage (see paragraph   24 above) to Mr A.G., a Russian national, Ms E.P. applied for Russian citizenship on the basis that her birthplace had been in Russia and she was married to a Russian national. 28.     On 21 July 2010 the applicant’s application for a warrant of execution was received by the Moscow branch of the Russian Ministry of Justice. On 5 August 2010 that application, together with enclosed documents, was forwarded to the Moscow City Court. 29.     On 10 September 2010 the Moscow City Court received the application together with the enclosed documents. 30 .     On 15 September 2010 a judge of the Moscow City Court refused to examine the validity of the judgment of 28 October 2009 for the purposes of enforcement on the territory of Russia. The judge held that, pursuant to the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Russia of 1993 and the Minsk Convention of 1993, such judgments were self-executing and did not need any further action in order to be enforced. In addition, the judgment of 28   October 2009 had not imposed on the defendant (Ms E.P.) any obligation to act or to refrain from acting in a particular way. The Moscow City Court concluded that it had no competence to examine the applicant’s application. 31 .     The decision of 15 September 2010 was forwarded to the applicant on 16 September 2010 by registered mail. According to the Government, it was received by the applicant in Moldova on 10 November 2010. 32.     On the same date (on 16 September 2010), the documents enclosed by the applicant with his application for a warrant of execution were returned to him. As is apparent from the explanations of the Government, those documents were sent through the Moscow branch of the Ministry of Justice, which forwarded them to the federal Ministry of Justice, which, in turn, forwarded the documents to the Moldovan Ministry of Justice for further dispatch to the applicant. 33 .     Having received the decision of 15 September 2010, the applicant appealed. However, since by that time the time-limits for lodging an appeal had expired, he first introduced a motion with the Moscow City Court for waiver of the time-limit. 34 .     On 10   December 2010 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s motion and ruled that, in view of the applicant’s explanations, the time ‑ limit had to be waived. The appeal was consequently forwarded to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 35 .     On 1 February 2011 the ruling of 15 September 2010 was quashed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court’s interpretation of the Minsk Convention. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the first-instance court was not in a position to conclude whether the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28   October 2009 did not require enforcement, as the materials of the case did not contain a “certified copy of that decision”. The case was remitted to the Moscow City Court for fresh examination. On 17 February 2011 the case file was forwarded from the Supreme Court to the Moscow City Court. 2.     Ms E.P.’s attempt to obtain a residence order in respect of the child 36.     On an unspecified date Ms E.P. brought court proceedings before a Russian court seeking to obtain a residence order in respect of the child. 37.     On 18 January 2011 the Cheremushki District Court of Moscow refused to consider her application, holding that the dispute had already been resolved by another court, namely the Rîșcani District Court. 3.     Second round of enforcement proceedings 38.     On 23 February 2011 the applicant wrote a letter to the Moscow City Court in which he reiterated his original position and arguments and informed the court that Ms E.P. was continuing to live at an address on Bak. Street. 39.     On 24 February and 17 March 2011 a judge of the Moscow City Court examined the case file and issued procedural rulings ordering additional evidence to be gathered. In particular, the judge decided to call Ms   E.P. for a preliminary discussion concerning the case on 17 March 2011. On that date the judge set the case for an open hearing and ordered that the parties be notified. 40.     The judge also invited the applicant to resubmit the package of documents he had previously submitted together with his first application of 12   May 2010 (letter of 25 February 2011, no. 3M-0061/2011). The judge indicated that those documents should reach the Moscow City Court before 17   March 2011. 41.     On 3 March 2011 the Ministry of Justice of Russia received from the Ministry of Justice of Moldova a renewed application for a warrant of execution together with supporting documents. A cover letter by the Ministry of Justice of Moldova referred to the provisions of the Minsk Convention and was very similar to the first letter sent on 4 June 2010. The request contained forty pages of enclosures, consisting of court decisions by the Moldovan courts in the applicant’s case. 42.     On an unspecified date the request by the Moldovan Ministry of Justice was forwarded by the federal Russian Ministry of Justice to its Moscow branch. 43.     On 22 March 2011 the Moscow branch of the Ministry of Justice received the application and on 24   March 2011 forwarded it with the enclosed documents to the Moscow City Court. In a cover letter addressed to the President of the Moscow City Court, the Russian Ministry of Justice asked to be kept informed about the developments in the applicant’s case. According to the Government, application and the enclosed documents were only received by the Moscow City Court on 27 April 2011. 44.     On 7 April 2011 the Moscow City Court, following the remittal of the case from the Supreme Court of Russia, re-examined the first application. Ms E.P. was present at the hearing. She argued that the original judgment of 28 October 2009 had been unlawful, as the Chisinau court had been incompetent to examine the dispute. She insisted that the applicant and the Moldovan courts had been perfectly aware of her moving to Russia with the child on 13 September 2008. She also argued that the Moldovan courts should not have examined the case, as only the courts of the country where the child and his resident parent or lawful guardian had established de facto residence were competent to hear such a case. According to Ms E.P., the Moldovan courts had based their jurisdiction on the “registration” ( propiska ) status of the child, whereas his de facto residence was in Russia, together with his mother. Ms E.P. also argued that she was working and was capable of taking proper care of her son in Moscow. 45.     The Moscow City Court rejected the arguments made by Ms   E.P. It ruled that the child (A.P.) was residing in Moscow on a temporary basis, as confirmed by the temporary registration certificates, and that his permanent place of residence was in Chisinau. Consequently, the Chisinau court had been competent, under the Minsk Convention and the bilateral treaty of 1993, to examine the matter. 46.     Further, the Moscow City Court held that none of the reasons preventing enforcement of a foreign judicial decision stated in Article   55 of the Minsk Convention existed in the case at hand. The alleged “unlawfulness” of the judgment of the Rîșcani District Court under the Minsk Convention and the Civil Procedure Code did not prevent the Russian courts from issuing a warrant of execution. 47.     As a result, the Moscow City court granted the application and ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 28 October 2009 on the territory of Russia. It stipulated that that judgment had ordered that the child reside, for the purposes of his upbringing and education, with his father. 48.     Ms E.P. appealed. In her statement of appeal she developed the arguments she had put forward before the Moscow City Court. In particular, she referred to the provisions of Russian law on the legal status of foreigners which defined a foreigner’s place of “permanent residence” as the place where the foreigner lives permanently and lawfully for a significant amount of time. She also maintained that the enforcement of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment would be contrary to the best interests of the child, as set forth in the 1989 UN Convention. In particular, she argued that the child did not remember the applicant and considered her new husband, Mr   A.G., to be his father, and that returning him to the care of his biological father would endanger his psychological well-being and development. Ms E.P. claimed that the decision of the Moscow City Court had ignored her son’s best interests: in particular, she referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia in the case of K., where the Russian courts had refused to enforce a decision of an Ukrainian court, finding that the children involved were living permanently on the territory of Russia and therefore only the Russian courts were competent to decide, on the basis of Russian law, the child residence dispute between the parents. 49.     The applicant lodged a written memorandum in reply to the statement of appeal by Ms E.P. The applicant contested her argument concerning the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Moldovan courts in the child residence proceedings. He further insisted that Ms E.P.’s conduct had been immoral and harmful for the child. 50.     On 13 July 2011 the Moscow City Court wrote a letter to the applicant explaining that on 27 April 2011 it had received a package of documents from the applicant. It appears that this was the same package which the applicant had previously submitted together with his first application for a warrant of execution (that of 12 May 2010), which had later been returned to him by the Moscow City Court on 16   September 2011, and which the Moscow City Court had requested from him again on 25   February 2011. 51 .     On 7 June 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined Ms E.P.’s appeal. The hearing took place in presence of Ms   E.P.; the applicant was absent from the hearing. She repeated her argument concerning the distinction between “registration” and “residence”, insisted that the Moldovan courts had misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the Minsk Convention, and asserted that they had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms   E.P. also referred to the provisions of Article 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), which provided that a foreign judgment should not be executed on the territory of the Russian Federation if it could harm the sovereignty or security of the Russian Federation or if it was contrary to public policy. Ms E.P. claimed that separating a small child from his mother would be contrary to the public policy of the Russian Federation. 52 .     Following the hearing the Supreme Court quashed the Moscow City Court’s judgment of 7 April 2011. The Supreme Court found that the applicant had failed to follow the procedure established by the Minsk Convention. In particular, he had not submitted the following documents to the Russian courts: a certified copy of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment, a letter from the Rîșcani District Court asking for the enforcement of the judgment on the territory of the Russian Federation, a statement by the judge that the judgment had not yet been enforced in Moldova, a confirmation by the same judge that Ms   E.P. and her representative had been duly notified of the date and place of the hearing before the Rîșcani District Court, and, finally, a statement by the Rîșcani District Court that the judgment had entered into force. The Supreme Court also noted that the translations into Russian of the court documents submitted by the applicant had not been made. In such circumstances, the Moscow City Court should not have granted his application for a warrant of execution – instead, under Article 136 of the CCP the City Court was obliged to adjourn the proceedings and give the applicant the opportunity to submit the missing documents. The Supreme Court ordered that the case be remitted for fresh consideration. 53.     On 1 August 2011 the case was received by a judge of the Moscow City Court. The judge ordered that Ms E.P. be summoned and that she provide details of the address she had stated when obtaining temporary registration in Moscow. 54.     On 15 August 2011 the judge set 29 August 2011 as the date of the hearing of the case and ordered that Ms E.P.’s second husband, Mr   A.G., be summoned. 4.     Third round of enforcement proceedings 55.     On 16 June 2011 Ms E.P. left her second husband, Mr A.G., and took the child with her. Mr A.G. stated (see below) that he was aware that she had moved in with a new partner, but he did not know his name or where they were living. 56.     On 4 July 2011 a police officer from the Teplyi Stan Police Station visited Mr A.G. and inquired about the whereabouts of A.P. On the next day a municipal council worker visited Mr A.G. and asked him the same question, but Mr A.G. was unable to give any specific information in response. It appears that by that time relations between Mr A.G. and Ms   E.P. had seriously deteriorated and Mr A.G. was considering starting divorce proceedings. 57.     On 15 July 2011 the applicant lodged a motion for interim measures with the Moscow City Court. He informed the court that Ms E.P. and Mr   A.G. had split up, that she had taken the child with her, and that their whereabouts were unknown. He also alleged that her new partner was potentially violent and that he had previously threatened to beat up Mr   A.G. The applicant claimed that in order to protect the child from the unpredictable behaviour of his mother and her new partner interim measures were needed. First, the applicant asked the court to obtain from the police details of the new address where Ms E.P. was living with the child. Second, the applicant sought an order prohibiting Ms E.P. from leaving Moscow and Russia without the applicant’s written consent. Third, the applicant asked the court to make a temporary residence order in respect of the child in his favour, pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Moscow City Court. 58.     On 25 July 2011 the Moscow police informed the applicant that the whereabouts of Ms E.P. and her son were unknown, and that a “search file” was open in respect of a minor, A.P., in the competent department of the police department for the South-West Administrative Circuit of Moscow. 59.     On 27 July 2011 Mr A.G. wrote a letter to the Moscow City Court in which he supported the applicant’s claims. In particular, he insisted that Ms   E.P. had manipulated him, and that by moving in with her new partner she had deprived the child of his adoptive father. 60.     On 15 August 2011 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s motion applying for interim measures and dismissed it. The City Court held that the interim measures sought by the applicant (a prohibition on Ms   E.P. leaving Russia and the grant of a temporary residence order in respect of the child) amounted, in essence, to two separate claims, which went beyond the scope of the enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicant. 61.     On 29 August 2011 the Moscow City Court held a hearing, in the presence of Ms E.P. and Mr A.G. as a witness. The City Court heard both of them; in particular, Ms E.P. and Mr A.G. both related the story of their separation. Mr A.G.’s testimony was generally consonant with the position of the applicant; Ms E.P. denied the allegations of improper behaviour and blamed Mr A.G. for their separation. Ms E.P. also informed the court of her current actual address and place of formal registration (both were in Moscow). 62 .     On the same date (29 August 2011) the Moscow City Court decided to grant the applicant’s application for enforcement of the judgment of the Rîșcani District Court making a residence order in respect of the child. The City Court found that the applicant had submitted all necessary documents concerning the original judgments of the Moldovan courts, the proper notification of the defendant and the final character of those judgments. The City Court further established that none of the reasons preventing the execution of the foreign judgment stated by Article   412 of the CCP or Article 55 of the Minsk Convention were present in the case. In particular, the City Court dismissed the argument by Ms   E.P. that the enforcement of the decision of the Rîșcani District Court in Russia would be contrary to “public policy”. The City Court noted that the concept of “public policy” was different from the notion of “national legislation”, and that it referred to the most basic rules by which society functions in economic and social terms and the foundations of the legal order established in the Russian Constitution. 63 .     Next, the Moscow City Court repeated its earlier argument that the mother and child’s “permanent place of residence” was to be determined on the basis of their place of registration, which was in Moldova. In Russia, Ms   E.P. had temporary resident status and had changed her address several times. Furthermore, the child residence proceedings had been started by the applicant before Ms E.P. had moved from Moldova to Russia. The Moscow City Court concluded that the Moldovan courts had had jurisdiction in the child residence proceedings. As a result, the Moscow City Court issued an execution warrant (no. 002197065) ordering the enforcement of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009. 64.     It appears that this judgment was not appealed against and thus entered into force. С.     Position of the Bailiffs’ Service and its review by the courts 1.     Refusal to carry out enforcement 65.     On 3 October 2011 execution warrant no. 002197065 was sent, by registered post, to the Bailiffs’ Service. 66.     On 18 October 2011 the execution warrant issued by the Moscow City Court (No. 002197065) was received by the Bailiffs’ Service. 67 .     On 19   October 2011 the warrant was sent back to the Moscow City Court without execution. The bailiff to whom the warrant was entrusted decided that the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009 was “not subject to enforcement”. As is evident from a letter from the Head of the Legal Department of the Bailiffs’ Service of 25   November 2011, the Bailiffs’ Service did not forward a copy of its decision not to institute enforcement proceedings to the applicant. 68.     Having become aware of the decision, on an unspecified date the applicant asked the Bailiffs’ Service to review the case file they held concerning his case. However, those materials were allegedly destroyed during a fire that took place on 27 ‑ 28   December 2011 at the Cheremushki branch of the Bailiffs’ Service. 69.     In the meantime the applicant learned, through his own enquiries, that Ms E.P. was living with another man, A. S.-O., at an address on Rok.   Street. However, on 8 February 2012 the Social Security Department informed the applicant that Ms E.P. and A.P. were not living at the address on Rok.   Street. According to the owner of the flat, the mother and the child had rented a room in that flat for several months but had then left without leaving any forwarding address. 70.     On 18 April 2012 the Bailiffs’ Service wrote a letter to the Moldovan Embassy explaining the reasons for the non ‑ enforcement of execution warrant no. 002197065. According to the letter, “the judicial act [of the Moldovan courts] simply acknowledged the fact that the child was living with his father and, by its [very] nature, did not require enforcement action [to be taken], since the court ... did not establish an obligation on the respondent to perform certain actions or refrain from performing them. Similarly, the judicial act did not contain an order for removal of the child from the respondent’s [care] and his return to the plaintiff”. The Service recommended that the applicant file a new claim with the courts in Moldova in order to obtain an order specifically stating that such actions take place. 2.     Judicial review of the bailiffs’ failure to act 71.     On 3 March 2012 the applicant filed a complaint with the Cheremushki District Court of Moscow of inaction on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking an injunction. 72.     The District Court summoned Ms   E.P., the applicant and the bailiff who had issued the impugned decision. The first hearing was held on 11   May 2012, but all of the parties summoned failed to appear, so the court adjourned the hearing to 1 June 2012. 73.     The hearing of 1 June 2012 took place in presence of Ms E.P. and a representative of the Bailiffs’ Service. However, due to the failure of the applicant to appear, the case was adjourned to 21 June 2012. 74.     On 4 June 2012 the applicant informed the court that he agreed to the examination of the case in his absence. 75 .     The new hearing took place on 21 June 2012. None of the parties were present, but the court decided to proceed with the examination of the case on the basis of the case file. The District Court granted the applicant’s claim that same day. It found that the execution warrant issued by the Moscow City Court, based on the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28   October 2009, was valid and enforceable on the territory of Russia. It further held that the decision of the bailiff not to start enforcement proceedings in this respect was unlawful. On 28   September 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. 76.     According to the Government, the bailiff concerned was not subjected to disciplinary action for his failure to enforce the execution warrant due to his dismissal from the civil service. D.     Return of Ms E.P. and the child to Moldova 77.     On 6 August 2012 the applicant wrote a letter to the Russian police, asking them to inform him of the whereabouts of his son and Ms E.P. As per the reply of the Cheremushki District Prosecutor of 27 August 2012, Ms   E.P. was living with her son on Mezhd. Street in Moscow, while being formally registered at another address in Moscow. 78 .     On 21 September 2012 Ms E.P. was detained by the Russian police and questioned in relation to her immigration status. According to the authorities, her resident permit had expired on 18 September 2012. Ms   E.P. confirmed that her residence permit had expired but explained that she was in the process of regularising her status. Her case was submitted to a judge, who decided to give her an administrative fine of 2,000 Roubles. 79.     According to the applicant, on 12   June 2013 the Moldovan authorities instituted criminal proceedings again Ms E.P. for illegal crossing of the border. 80 .     On 3 October 2012 Ms E.P. and the applicant’s son left Moscow and crossed the Russia-Ukraine border through the Khomutovka checkpoint. Sometime later they arrived, via Ukraine, in Moldova. According to the respondent Government, the applicant was notified of this in April 2013 at the latest. 81.     On an unspecified date in 2013, Ms E.P. met the applicant and handed their son over to him. Consequently, the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 28   October 2009 was finally executed. In a letter to the Court of 22   July 2013 the applicant confirmed that information. E.     Other legal proceedings in Moldova and Russia 82.     In 2010-2012 the applicant made numerous attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against Ms E.P. in Russia. His letters to the Russian prosecuting authorities led to numerous inquiries which concerned allegations of violence in respect of A.P., the immigration status of Ms   E.P. and so forth. However, all of those inquiries were terminated, the investigative authorities having concluded that there was no case to answer. 83.     Thus, on 23 March 2010 the General Prosecutor’s Office refused to extradite Ms E.P. to Moldova in connection with criminal proceedings which had been opened against her there.   On several occasions the Russian police refused to institute criminal proceedings against Ms E.P. in Russia (decisions of 16 May 2009, 19 March 2010, 15 September 2011, and 1   February 2013). 84.     The applicant also called on the Russian child welfare authorities at different levels – municipal, city and federal – to act on a number of occasions. According to the Government, the competent officials repeatedly tried to establish the whereabouts of Ms E.P. and the child, and inspect their living conditions. An inspection of 26 October 2011 assessed A.P.’s home environment and living conditions. On 24 May 2012 A.P. was personally examined by a child welfare board at his kindergarten; the board concluded that A.P. was not a victim of violence at home. 85.     On 26 September 2011 the Rîșcani District Court, at the request of the applicant, rendered a new judgment whereby it ordered Ms   E.P. to return the child, A.P., to the applicant. That judgment came into force on 27   June 2012. 86.     In 2012 the applicant brought proceedings against the Russian Federation seeking compensation for the Bailiffs’ Service’s failure to enforce the warrant of execution of 29 August 2011. On 20 November 2012 the Moscow City Court returned this claim without examination. The Moscow City Court held that Law no. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010 did not give rise to liability on the part of the State for non-enforcement of judgments when the obligation on the defendant consisted of the return of a child to the custody of another parent. On 18 February 2013 the Moscow City Court, sitting as a court of appeal, upheld that decision. 87.     On 23 April 2013 the Moscow City Court ordered that a duplicate of execution warrant no. 002197065 be issued. The Moscow City Court found that the original execution warrant had been destroyed in the fire at the Bailiffs’ Service’s premises on 28 December 2011. 88.     On 27 June 2013 the Moscow City Court issued a duplicate warrant of execution in respect of the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment of 26   September 2011. On 15 May 2013 the Bailiffs’ Service opened enforcement proceedings on the basis of that warrant. 89.     On 15 May 2013 the Bailiffs’ Service opened enforcement proceedings on the basis of the duplicate of warrant no. 002197065 (i.e. the warrant issued on 29   August 2011). On 20 May 2013, 19 June 2013, 18   July 2013, and on 1   August 2013 a bailiff visited some of the addresses where Ms   E.P. had previously lived but did not find her there. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 90.     Chapter 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”) regulates the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Russian Federation. Article 409 of the CCP stipulates that foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in Russia if this is provided for by an international agreement to which Russia is a party. 91.     Article 411 of the CCP stipulates that an application for a warrant of execution should be supported by the following documents: a copy of the judgment of a foreign court certified by that court; an official document confirming that the judgment has entered into legal force, if it is not clear from the text of the judgment itself; a document describing the situation as regards the execution of that judgment on the territory of the state where it was rendered; and a document confirming that the defendant was properly and in due time notified of the time and venue of the proceedings which ended with the judgment. The person applying for a warrant of execution should also produce certified translations of the above documents into Russian. 92.     Article 412 of the CCP contains a list of grounds on which a Russian court may refuse to issue a warrant of execution in respect of a judgment of a foreign court. In particular, the judgment should not be executed if it might harm the sovereignty or national security of the Russian Federation or be against public policy. 93.     Article 413 of the CCP describes the situations in which a judgment will be recognised in Russia but will not, in itself, require any particular enforcement actions to be taken. 94.     On 20 July 2011 the Presidium of the Supreme Court issued a Decree called “A review of the jurisprudence on child-raising disputes”. It recommended to the Russian courts that, where a judgment concerns child residence, they should specifically state any obligation on a parent to return the child to the parent who has been granted a residence order by the judgment. 95 .     The Code of Administrative Offences established penalties for parents who prevent minors from communicating with their other parent, provided that such communication is not contrary to the interests of the child, or who deliberately conceal a minor’s whereabouts, or fail to comply with court judgments making an order in respect of a minor’s place of residence. Such behaviour is punishable by an administrative fine ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB), and up to RUB   5,000 or by administrative arrest for up to five days in the case of a repeated offence (Article 5.35 §§ 2 and 3). 96.     The failure of a judgment debtor to comply with an obligation in kind within the time-limit set by a bailiff after the imposition of an obligation to pay an execution fee amounts to an administrative fine ranging from RUB   1,000 to 2,000 (Article 17.15 § 1). Other relevant provisions of the Russian legislation on administrative offences and on enforcement proceedings and the powers of bailiffs are cited in Pakhomova v. Russia (no.   22935/11, §§ 91 et seq., 24 October 2013). III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW 97.     On 25 February 1993 Russia and Moldova concluded a bilateral Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the 1993 Treaty”). In particular, Article 30 of the 1993 Treaty provided that legal relations between parents and children should be governed by the legislation of the country where they “have habitual residence” ( sovmestnoye mestozhitelstvo ). If one parent or a child resides on the territory of the other State Party, their legal relations are governed by the legislation of the country to which the child belongs by virtue of his nationality. 98.     Articles 50 et seq. of the 1993 Treaty concern mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments and establish a procedure for obtaining a warrant of execution. In particular, Article 53 empowers a court examining an application for a warrant of execution to obtain “clarifications” from the court which rendered the decision to be enforced. However, Article 53 does not stipulate in what circumstances “clarifications” must be sought. 99.     Article 56 establishes a list of situations in which the court may refuse to issue a warrant of execution. It is possible, for example, if the defendant in the original proceedings has not taken part in those proceedings because he was not properly notified, or if the same dispute between the same parties has already been resolved on the territory of the State where the warrant of execution is sought, of if the case resolved in one State falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State where the warrant of execution is sought under the Treaty (further details and qualifications omitted). 100.     Russia and Moldova have both signed and ratified the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”). Article 32 of the Minsk Convention establishes a rule nearly identical to that of Article   30 of the 1993 Treaty. Articles 51 et seq. of the Minsk Convention concern mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments and establish a procedure for obtaining a warrant of execution. Those provisions are formulated in the same terms as the corresponding provisions of the 1993 Treaty; however, the list of exceptions which prevent the issuance of a warrant of execution is longer. In particular, the court may refuse to issue a warrant of execution if the original decision rendered in another member-State is not final or enforceable, if the statutory time-limit for enforcement has been exceeded, and so forth. 101.     Both Russia and Moldova have signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (“the 1989 New York Convention”). For the relevant provisions of the 1989 New York Convention see Maumousseau and Washington v. France , no. 39388/05, § 44, 6   December 2007. 102.     Both Russia and Moldova have signed and ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 (hereinafter “the 1980 Hague Convention”). Moldova acceded to the 1980 Hague Convention in 1998; it entered into force in respect of Moldova in the same year. Russia acceded to the 1980 Hague Convention on 28 July 2011; it entered into force on 1 October 2011. The accession of Russia was accepted by Moldova on 22 October 2013. Following the acceptance of Russia’s accession by Moldova, the 1980 Hague Convention entered into force between Moldova and Russia on 1 January 2014 (Article 38 of the 1980 Hague Convention). For the relevant provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 34, ECHR 2013. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 103.     The applicant complained that the failure of the Russian authorities to enforce the judgment of the Rîșcani District Court of Chisinau of 28   October 2009, whereby he had been awarded a residence order in respect of his son, A.P., had violated his right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ... 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government 104.     The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he had not lodged a cassation appeal. The Government did not specify which particular judgment or decision the applicant ought to have challenged by way of the cassation appeal. 105.     On the merits, the Government argued that the authorities had fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. The Government outlined the provisions of Russian law concerning the powers of bailiffs and the police, making particular reference to their powers when a warrant of execution concerns a child residence matter. In particular, a bailiff had the power to put a missing child on a wanted list; when the whereabouts of the child were established, and the resident parent or lawful guardian of the child was not immediately available, bailiffs had the right to place the child in the temporary care of the competent guardianship authority until such time as the resident parent or lawful guardian arrived and took care of the child. The Government also summarised the relevant articles of the Code of Administrative Offences which may be used against an “abductor” parent, and described the powers of the police and of the municipal authorities. The Government noted that the penalties provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences could be imposed by municipal child welfare boards, by bailiffs or, on the request of a child welfare board or a bailiff, by a district court. 106.     The Government further described the Russian system of recognition and execution of foreign judgments, in the light of the international treaties to which Russia and Moldova were members. The Government contended that since the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment had required action to be taken – namely, returning the child to his father – the applicant had been required to obtain a warrant of execution in order to have that judgment enforced in Russia. 107.     Referring to Article 38 point 4 of the 1980 Hague Convention, the Government submitted that it had not been applicable at the relevant period of time. On that basis, the Government distinguished the present case from the case of Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no. 31679/96, § 95, ECHR 2000 ‑ I, where the Court had held that Article 8 of the Convention and the State’s obligations vis-à-vis the “left-behind” parent should be inter