CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 décembre 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 } .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 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s9F454055 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .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 HROMADKA AND HROMADKOVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 22909/10)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   11 December 2014     FINAL   11/03/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hromadka and Hromadkova v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 November 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 22909/10) 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 Czech national, Mr Zdenek Hromadka (“the first applicant), on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter, Ms Anna Valerie Hromadkova (“the second applicant”), who holds both Czech and Russian citizenship, on 31 March 2010. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr Yu. Kiryushin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that by failing to recognise and enforce the final judgment of a Czech court granting the first applicant custody of his daughter, the second applicant, who had been wrongfully removed from the Czech Republic by the child’s mother, O.H., and by failing to secure contact between the applicants in Russia, the Russian authorities violated their right to respect for their family life guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention. 4.     On 7 September 2012 the application was granted priority treatment (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court), and on 5 November 2012 it was communicated to the Russian Government. 5.     On 19 December 2013 the Czech Government declared that they would 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 first applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Prague, the Czech Republic. The second applicant was born in 2005. She currently lives in Russia with O.H., her mother. 7.     On 5 June 2003 the first applicant married a Russian national, O.H. The couple decided to settle in Prague. 8.     On 28 January 2005 their daughter, the second applicant, was born. 9.     In 2007 the first applicant and O.H. decided to separate. 10 .     On 1 November 2007 O.H. filed for divorce in the Czech Republic. Both O.H. and the first applicant sought custody of the child. 11 .     In April 2008 O.H., unbeknownst to the first applicant, obtained a one ‑ month Russian visa for the second applicant, and on 17 April 2008, together with the latter, left for Russia (Vologda Region). Upon the expiry of the visa on 12   May 2008 O.H. did not bring the second applicant back to the Czech Republic. Instead, on 20 May 2008 she obtained a temporary residence permit for the second applicant from the Russian Federal Migration Service, and on 27 May 2008, Russian citizenship for the latter. On an unspecified date O.H. and the second applicant left for St Petersburg. 12 .     On 7 July 2009 O.H. applied to the Federal Security Service Border Control (Пограничное управление Федеральной службы безопасности Российской Федерации по городу Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области) in order to restrict the second applicant’s travel outside Russia. 13 .     As of 10 July 2009 the second applicant’s travel abroad was restricted. 14 .     Since 29 May 2011 the first applicant has had no contact with the second applicant, because O.H. prevented him from either seeing the second applicant or communicating with her by telephone. The Russian authorities have been unable to establish O.H.’s and the second applicant’s whereabouts since then. A.     The proceedings in the Czech Republic 1.     The interim measure granting the first applicant temporary custody of the child 15 .     The interim decision of Prague 4 District Court of 30   April 2008 as amended by the interim decision of Prague Municipal Court of 21   July 2008 granted the first applicant temporary custody of the second applicant pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings. The Prague Municipal Court thereby obliged O.H. to hand the child over to the first applicant, not to leave the Czech Republic and not to remain outside the territory of the Czech Republic with the minor. The interim decision entered into force on 8   August 2008. 2.     The final judgment granting the first applicant custody of the child 16 .     On 2 June 2011 Prague 4 District Court issued a final custody judgment by which custody of the second applicant was granted to the first applicant. O.H. was obliged to pay the first applicant 5,000 Czech korunas – about 200 euros (EUR) – monthly in alimony. The court held as follows: “The father loves [his daughter] very much; in the opinion of the experts he is better developed emotionally in comparison to the mother, is more capable of self-control and handling [stress] so as to not spoil the relationship between the mother and [the child] or otherwise turn [the child] against her mother. It was established that the interests of [the child] require that she be placed in her father’s care [as he] was established to be a more suitable caregiver; at the same time it was established that as a result of [the child’s] separation from her father the former’s psychological well-being [has been affected]. It was established that for the last three years the father, unlike the mother, has been cooperating with [the custody and guardianship authority], and the [guardian] had therefore had a real possibility to examine the father’s living conditions and his situation; ... it was established that he can provide [the child] with normal accommodation ... The father is financially stable, which enables him to provide [the child] with the material [items] and non-material values necessary for her health, mental, cultural and physical development. [The child] will soon go to primary school and the father, in view of his education and indisputable interest in [the child], is capable of providing her, along with the possibility of school education, with everything she needs. ... Despite the fact that the father was and is still being prevented from communicating with [the child], he [supports the child financially by giving money directly to the mother and making deposits into the child’s bank account], and in addition to alimony the father gives [the child] presents whenever he has the possibility to meet her. The mother, on the contrary, was characterised as unstable, authoritative, unfriendly to the father and inclined to impulsive aggression and rash behavior. While carrying out her parental duties she harms [the child], she has abused her parental authority since November 2007 at least ... Therefore, she acts both unlawfully and contrary to the interests of [the child] and the court’s decision. While exercising her parental authority the mother consciously and purposefully acts in total disregard of the recommendations of the experts and her lawful duties; she completely prevented communication between the father and [the child], at first without any reason. Subsequently, under an invented pretext, in April 2008 she took [the child], without the permission of the father, the court or [the custody and guardianship authority] abroad to the Russian Federation, where she has kept [the child] until now. At the same time the mother has not complied with the decision of the court pursuant to which she should have handed [the child] over to the father, to render to the father [the child’s] travelling passport and not to remain [with the child] outside the territory of the Czech Republic. [It was established that the decision in question] was served on [the mother] first of all through her representative in the Czech Republic, and thereafter to her personally in the course of the proceedings at the courts in St Petersburg and Moscow. Furthermore, the mother refuses to send an invitation for visiting Russia to the father, [who] has to go through demanding procedures to obtain Russian entry visas, and when the father succeeds in obtaining a visa and goes to Russia the mother often hides [the child] and refuses to communicate with the father[.] [S]he does not even allow the father to talk to [the child] on the telephone, and even if she lets them talk she purposefully manipulates the father’s and [the child’s] mindset according to the situation. Therefore, the court believes that the mother has, in disregard of the law of the Czech Republic, willfully interfered with [the child’s family life], her right to know her father and her right to be in her father’s custody. She has interfered with [the child’s] right to freedom of movement and to choose her place of residence, and her right to free entry to her homeland, the Czech Republic. Thereby the mother has breached the rights guaranteed by the State in the framework of Conventions on Human Rights, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The mother, unbeknownst to the father, the court or [the custody and guardianship authority] and without their consent in contravention of the legal order of the Czech Republic, applied to Russian administrative authorities to grant [the child], a national of the Czech Republic, Russian citizenship, on the basis of which in a record-breaking short term of five days the latter was granted Russian citizenship. ... Regarding the father’s claim for termination of the mother’s parental rights, the court has decided to dismiss it [since termination of parental rights is the most serious interference in relations between parents and children, when the violation of parents’ duties is so serious that the termination of parental rights is the only possible solution to protect the interests of the child]. The court has arrived at the conclusion that termination of the mother’s parental rights would be in contradiction with the father’s own statement in his final speech that [the child] should have both parents. ...” 17.     The case was examined in the absence of O.H. The District Court established that on 10   May 2011 consul T. of the Czech Consulate General informed O.H. by telephone about the venue and the time of the hearing, that is, 2   June 2011 at 1 p.m. in Prague 4 District Court, but O.H. did not say anything in reply and hung up. Nobody answered the phone when the consul tried to reach O.H. again. The telephone was subsequently switched off. The International Department for Civil Matters of the Czech Ministry of Justice did not receive confirmation from the Russian authorities on whether the request of October 2010 for the delivery of a court summons to O.H. had been complied with. The District Court therefore considered that O.H. had been duly notified and that she had failed to appear in court without valid reason. It therefore proceeded in her absence. 18 .     On 10 February 2012 that judgment became final. 19.     The judgment remains unenforced to this day. B.     The proceedings in Russia 1.     Proceedings relating to the decision of the Russian Federal Migration Service of 20   May 2008 20.     The first applicant challenged the decision of the Russian Federal Migration Service of 20   May 2008 granting the second applicant a temporary residence permit (see paragraph 11 above). 21.     On 13 February 2009 Vologda Town Court dismissed the first applicant’s claims. The court held that the temporary residence permit had been granted to the second applicant in accordance with the procedure established by law, and that the relevant procedure did not require the applicant’s consent. 22.     On 24   April 2009 Vologda Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. 2.     Proceedings relating to the decision of the Russian Federal Migration Service of 27   May 2008 23.     The first applicant challenged the decision of the Russian Federal Migration Service of 27   May 2008 granting the second applicant Russian citizenship (see paragraph 11 above). 24.     On 6 July 2009 Vologda Town Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim. The court held that the granting of Russian citizenship to the second applicant had been carried out in compliance with the procedure provided for by the Russian law and did not require the consent of the first applicant as O.H., the second applicant’s mother, had Russian citizenship and the second applicant, having received a Russian temporary residence permit, was considered to be residing in Russia at the moment when the relevant decision had been taken by the competent authorities. The court held that the Russian Constitution allowed for dual citizenship, and that the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 6   June 1980 on prevention of dual citizenship, relied on by the first applicant, was no longer in force after 5   July 2006. The court further held that there was no evidence of criminally punishable acts in the actions of the Federal Migration Service. 25.     The hearing of the case on 6   July 2009 took place in the absence of the first applicant. His request for adjournment of the hearing (due to his involvement in other court proceedings in St Petersburg) was dismissed. The first applicant was, however, represented by a lawyer. 26.     On 9   October 2009 Vologda Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 3.     Proceedings relating to the first applicant’s request for recognition and enforcement of the interim decision of 21 July 2008 27 .     On 12 March 2009 the first applicant applied to St Petersburg City Court seeking formal recognition of the interim measure of the Prague Municipal Court of 21   July 2008 granting him temporary custody of the second applicant pending the divorce proceedings (see paragraph 15 above). 28 .     By a final decision of 15   December 2009, however, the Supreme Court of Russia rejected the request. It held that the Treaty of 12   August 1982 between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance did not apply to interim measures. 4.     Proceedings relating to the first applicant’s visiting rights 29 .     As he had been prevented by O.H. from seeing the second applicant, on 20   April 2009 the first applicant brought proceedings before the Russian court seeking to have the terms of his contact with the second applicant in Russia fixed. 30 .     By a final decision of 18   May 2010 St Petersburg City Court discontinued the above proceedings. It found that according to the Treaty of 12   August 1982 between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance, litigation in the domestic courts of one High Contracting Party to the agreement had to be discontinued if the same litigation between the same litigants was pending before the domestic courts of the other High Contracting Party. 5.     Proceedings relating to the restriction of second applicant’s travel outside Russia 31 .     On 23 September 2010 the first applicant brought proceedings against O.H. seeking to cancel the restriction on the second applicant’s travel outside Russia (see paragraph 13 above). 32 .     By a final decision of 18 April 2011 St Petersburg City Court dismissed his claim. The court held that the essence of the first applicant’s complaint had been the fixing of the terms of his contact with the second applicant, which had been for the Czech courts to determine. The court held, therefore, that until the final judgment of the Czech courts the first applicant and O.H. were to decide on the issues in question by mutual agreement. The court further pointed out that the first applicant had the right to communicate with the second applicant on the territory of the Russian Federation and that O.H. had no right to prevent that. 6.     Proceedings relating to the first applicant’s request for recognition and enforcement of the final custody judgment 33.     On 29 June 2012 the first applicant applied to St Petersburg City Court for recognition and enforcement of the judgment of Prague 4 District Court of 2 June 2011 (see paragraph 16 above). 34 .     On 9 October 2012 St Petersburg City Court, relying on Article   60 of the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance and Articles 409-12 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, refused the first applicant’s request, because O.H. had not been duly notified of the hearing of 2   June 2011 and had been deprived of the opportunity to take part in it. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “As it follows from the material of the case file [O.H.] did not participate in the proceedings before Prague 4 District Court resulting in a judgment the compulsory enforcement of which is sought by [the first applicant]. This circumstance is supported by the text of the judgment itself. As it follows from this document [O.H.] failed to appear [in court] for the hearing of the case [on 2 June 2011], although she had been informed orally about [the time and the place] of the hearing. The [Prague 4 District Court] found it established that [O.H.] had been informed about the hearing orally by a consul. At the same time it follows from [the applicant’s] application and the text of the above-mentioned judgment that in 2008 [O.H.] had left the territory of the Czech Republic with the child [and] resides on the territory of the Russian Federation. Taking into consideration [the fact] that at the time of delivery of the judgment O.H. has been residing on the territory of the Russian Federation, her notification should have been carried out in accordance with Article 9 of the Treaty, which provides that service of documents [must be] certified by a confirmation signed by the person on whom the document is served and officially sealed and signed by the competent authority responsible for the service with indication of the date of service, or by a confirmation issued by that competent authority with indication of the means, the place and the time of service. No such [confirmation] was provided by [the first applicant]. It follows from the contents of the above-mentioned judgment that a request for delivery of documents to [O.H.] was addressed to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and remained without reply. At the same time, according to Article 411 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation a request for compulsory enforcement of a foreign court judgment must be accompanied by a document showing that the party against whom the judgment was taken, and who did not participate in the proceedings, had been duly notified of the time and the place of the hearing. The same rule is contained in Article   55 of the Treaty. It follows from the contents of the above-mentioned legal provisions that notification of [O.H.] of the time and the place of the hearing should have been certified by [a] written confirmation, signed by [O.H.], [and] sealed by [the competent authority] which handed over the notification. No such documents were, however, provided by the [first applicant]. ... As noted above, the judgment of Prague 4 District Court indicates that [O.H.] was notified orally by a consul. ... The [first applicant’s] argument that [O.H.’s] notification by consul orally by telephone was in accordance with section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Czech Republic does not amount to proof of [O.H.’s] proper notification ... The above-mentioned Treaty does not provide for the possibility of notification by a consul. Under Article 10 of the Treaty Contracting Parties are entitled to serve the documents through consular establishments to their citizens only. However, [since O.H.] is not a citizen of the Czech Republic, but only had a permit for permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic, the [court summons] was not served on her ... In view of the foregoing the court finds that [O.H.] was deprived of the possibility to take part in the proceedings as a result of a failure to duly notify her of the time and the place of the hearing ...” 35.     The decision of 9 October 2012 was taken in the absence of O.H. Court summonses were repeatedly sent to O.H.’s place of residence in St   Petersburg and to the address in Nyuksenitsa, Vologda Region, given to the court by the first applicant. However, the summonses returned unclaimed following the expiration of the storage time. Attempts were also made to notify O.H. through a local police inspector, without success. The court therefore considered that it had taken sufficient and exhaustive measures to notify O.H. and to ensure her presence at the hearing, that the latter had abused her right, and that it was possible to examine the first applicant’s request in her absence. 36 .     On 3 December 2012 St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 9   October 2012 on appeal. 37 .     On 16 September 2013 the first applicant’s “cassation appeal” lodged against the judgment of 9   October 2012 and the decision on appeal of 3   December 2012 was dismissed. C.     Various actions undertaken by the Russian authorities in connection with the present case 1.     Involvement of the guardianship and trusteeship body 38 .     In February 2009 the first applicant applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body for St Petersburg Porokhovye municipal circuit (орган опеки и попечительства местной администрации внутригородского муниципального образования г. Санкт-Петербурга муниципальный округ Пороховые) to facilitate visits between him and the second applicant. 39.     In March 2009 the first applicant renewed his application. 40 .     On 12 March and 29   September 2009 representatives of the guardianship and trusteeship body accompanied the first applicant to visit the child. 41.     In the meantime, on 8 July 2009 the guardianship and trusteeship body examined O.H.’s living conditions in St Petersburg. It was established that the flat was in a very good condition, that all the furniture and household appliances were new, and that the girl had a separate room, which was spacious, tidy and cosy. 42 .     Between 2010 and July 2011 the first applicant did not apply to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between him and the second applicant. 43 .     In February 2012 the first applicant again applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise his upcoming visit in March 2012. He relied on the judgment of Prague 4 District Court of 2   June 2011. However, his request was refused in the absence of a judgment by the Russian court obliging the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between the first applicant and the second applicant. 2.     Involvement of children’s ombudsmans’ offices (a)     In St Petersburg 44.     On over a dozen occasions the first applicant applied to the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg seeking for assistance in establishing contact with his daughter and visa support. 45 .     In response to the first applicant’s requests the Ombudsman tried to reconcile the first applicant and O.H. In particular, during his visit to Russia between 23 September and 4 October 2010 the first applicant stayed at O.H.’s apartment and was able to have contact with his daughter. However, the first applicant and O.H. later had a conflict. O.H. claimed that the first applicant had been cruel to the child and that she would interfere with contact between the first applicant and the child in the interests of the latter. The Ombudsman explained to O.H. the provisions of the Family Code concerning the right of the parent living apart from the child to have contact with the child. Nevertheless O.H. stated that she viewed the situation as a strictly private family matter. In her opinion the wide media coverage of the case initiated by the first applicant and the involvement of a number of official bodies went contrary to the principles of the inviolability of private and family life. She further submitted that the child did not want to communicate with the first applicant. Since May 2011 the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg has lost all contact with O.H. Information about the second applicant was put on the Ombudsman’s website ( www.spbdeti.org ) in the “missing child” section. 46.     Concerning the issue of visa support to the first applicant, the Ombudsman applied to the representation of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in St Petersburg, which explained that the first applicant could apply to the health care and social welfare authorities for the invitation which was required in order to obtain a Russian visa. 47.     In his letter of 23 August 2013 the first applicant expressed his gratitude to the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg for her active participation in protecting the second applicant’s rights. (b)     In Vologda Region 48.     On 24 October 2012 the first applicant lodged a request with the Ombudsman for Children in Vologda Region asking for assistance in establishing his communication with his daughter. 49.     On 21 November 2012 the Ombudsman visited Nyuksenitsa, where O.H. was supposedly living. However, the information about O.H. and the second applicant’s whereabouts in Nyuksenitsa was not confirmed. The first applicant was informed accordingly. 50.     On 7 December 2012 the first applicant applied to the Ombudsman for Children in Vologda Region asking for an inquiry into the activity of the commission for the affairs of minors in Nyuksenskiy municipal district to be carried out owing to what he saw as their negligent attitude in examining the issue of establishing his communication with his daughter. 51.     On 29 December 2012 the first applicant was informed that his request was outside the Ombudsman’s competence and that he could apply to the prosecutor’s office or the court. 52.     On 11 April 2013 the first applicant again applied to the Ombudsman for Children in Vologda Region asking for assistance in establishing his daughter’s whereabouts. 53.     On 29 April 2013 the first applicant was informed that the child was not studying in any school in Nyuksenskiy municipal district and was not living there. (c)     Ombudsman for Children under the President of the Federation of Russia 54.     On 25 November 2009 and 29 July 2010 the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs applied to the Ombudsman for Children under the President of the Federation of Russia for assistance in the protection of the right of the second applicant to communicate with both parents. Since at the time O.H. lived in St Petersburg with the child, the applications were transmitted to the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg. 55.     On 21 March 2011 and 28 November 2011 the Ombudsman for Children under the President had consultative meetings with the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Czech Republic in the Russian Federation and actively corresponded with the Czech Embassy on the issue. Regular contact was maintained with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the guardianship and trusteeship body for St Petersburg Porokhovye municipal circuit. 56.     Meanwhile, on 25 July 2011 and 3 September 2012 the first applicant himself applied to the Ombudsman for Children under the President of the Federation of Russia. Regular contact was maintained with the first applicant by telephone and e-mail. 57 .     As a result of the work carried out by the Ombudsman for Children under the President and the ombudsmen for children in St   Petersburg and Vologda Region, on 28 February 2013 a reply was given to the first applicant. He was informed about the legal means of protecting his right to communicate with his daughter which were applicable to his situation. In particular, he was told that he could bring a civil action before the Russian courts in order to determine his access rights (иск об определении порядка общения с дочерью) . That recommendation was made with regard to the first applicant’s repeated assurances that he was not seeking compulsory enforcement of the judgment of Prague 4 District Court of 2   June 2011 as he understood that after such a long – in comparison to the child’s life – passage of time, the enforcement of that judgment could be harmful to his daughter and would not be in her best interests. At the same time the first applicant repeatedly stated his wish to establish and maintain regular contact with his daughter and to receive information about her life. However, the first applicant did not follow the above recommendation. 3.     Involvement of the prosecutor’s office and police 58 .     On 2 November 2011 the first applicant reported O.H.’s refusal to allow him to communicate with his daughter, the second applicant, to the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of St Petersburg. 59 .     The local police inspector went to O.H.’s registered place of residence in St Petersburg and found that she was not living there. The neighbours had no information about O.H.’s whereabouts. A summons requesting O.H. to present herself at the local police station was returned unclaimed after the expiration of its storage time. 60.     On 22 December 2011 the first applicant asked the police to search for O.H. in the absence of any information about her and the second applicant since 30   May 2011. The file was transferred to Krasnogvardeyskiy District investigations department (следственный отдел по Красногвардейскому главному следственному управлению Следственного комитета Российской Федерации по Санкт-Петербургу) . 61.     The investigator of Krasnogvardeyskiy District investigations department succeeded in reaching O.H.’s mother, G.K., on her mobile telephone. The latter submitted that she was in regular contact with O.H., but refused to divulge O.H.’s whereabouts. 62.     On 11 January 2012 the investigator received a fax message from O.H. in which the latter confirmed that she was living at her registered place of residence with the second applicant, and that she refused all contact with the first applicant. 63.     On the same day the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings into the disappearance of O.H. and the second applicant. 64 .     On 22 March 2012 the juvenile inspector of the local police went to the flat at O.H.’s registered address in St Petersburg, but nobody opened the door. O.H.’s neighbour, Mr Sh., said that O.H.’s flat had not been lived in since June 2011. 65.     On 26   March 2012 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Deputy Prosecutor set aside the decision of 11 January 2012 and returned the file to the investigator with instructions to carry out an additional check aimed at determining the whereabouts of O.H. and the second applicant. 66.     On 3 April 2012 and 26 May 2013 the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings into O.H.’s and the second applicant’s disappearance. Those decisions were subsequently set aside by the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Deputy Prosecutor and additional checks were ordered. 67 .     The additional checks revealed that O.H. had not been receiving her correspondence. They also established that the second applicant had not been attending kindergarten since 6   June 2011, and that the last appointments she had attended at the health care facility had been on 22   June and 6   September 2011. 68.     According to information provided by the Krasnogvardeyskiy District commission for the affairs of minors (комиссия по делам несовершеннолетних и защите их прав при администрации Красногвардейского района) , since the end of May 2011 O.H. had been hiding the second applicant from her father, the first applicant; she had not been opening the door and had been ignoring summonses to appear in court. 69.     The Krasnogvargeyskiy District Prosecutor’s Office examined the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against O.H. under Article   5.35 §   2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. However, the failure to establish O.H.’s whereabouts made it impossible to serve summonses on her, to obtain her explanations and to serve her with the record of administrative offence. 70 .     The prosecution authorities also conducted a check at O.H.’s presumed place of residence in Nyuksenitsa, Vologda Region. It was established that O.H. and the second applicant did not live there. 71 .     On 21 December 2012 Nyuksenskiy District Prosecutor questioned O.H.’s mother, G.K. The latter submitted that O.H. had lived and worked in Nyuksenitsa between June and August 2012, but that O.H.’s subsequent whereabouts were unknown to her. G.K. further submitted that the first applicant was not supporting O.H. financially, that he had arrived in Nyuksenitsa in summer 2012 and sent 4,000   Russian roubles (RUB) to O.H.’s place of residence in St Petersburg, although he had known that O.H. had been living and working in Nyuksenitsa at that time. 72.     It was established that in 2012 the second applicant had been enrolled for external studies in the first grade of Kirovskiy District school no.   277 in St   Petersburg under a distance learning programme. When O.H. had signed a contract with the school she had given a St Petersburg address. 73 .     On 31 January and 13 May 2013 the local police inspector again went to the above-mentioned address in St Petersburg, in vain. 74.     In August 2013 O.H. logged onto the school educational website, which suggested that the child started the second grade programme. 75.     To the present day the whereabouts of O.H. and the second applicant remain unknown. 4.     Cooperation between the Russian Ministry of Justice and the Czech authorities 76.     On 30   December 2008 the Russian Ministry of Justice received from the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic court orders issued by Prague   4 District Court for a check of O.H.’s living conditions and certain other procedural actions to be carried out. 77.     On 26 January and 27 January 2009 respectively, in accordance with the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance, the court orders were submitted to the North-Western Federal Circuit Department of the Ministry of Justice (Управление Министерства юстиции Российской Федерации по Северо-Западному федеральному округу) . 78.     On 16   March and 30   April 2009 reminders were sent to the North ‑ Western Federal Circuit Department of the Ministry of Justice. 79.     According to that department, the execution of the orders had been complicated by the failure of the court to provide O.H.’s correct address. 80.     On 31 July 2009 the Russian Ministry of Justice submitted to the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic the documents on execution of the orders of Prague 4 District Court. 81.     On 29 October 2010 and 12   November 2010 the Russian Ministry of Justice received from the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic another order issued by Prague   4 District Court to take certain procedural steps in respect of O.H. and a request for service of court documents on O.H. 82.     On 11 November and 23 November 2010 respectively the court order and request for service of documents were submitted to the North ‑ Western Federal Circuit Department. 83.     On 12 May 2011 the Russian Ministry of Justice informed the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic that it was impossible to execute the orders of Prague 4 District Court. 84.     Following receipt of a note from the Embassy of the Czech Republic forwarded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, on 29 March 2012, the Russian Ministry of Justice submitted to the North-Western Federal Circuit Department a court order issued by Prague 4 District Court for service of court documents on O.H. 85.     On 31 July 2012 the Russian Ministry of Justice submitted to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs the documents attesting to the impossibility of executing that court order. 86.     Following receipt of another note from the Embassy of the Czech Republic, on 22   November 2012 the Russian Ministry of Justice again submitted to the North-Western Federal Circuit Department a court order issued by Prague   4 District Court for service of court documents on O.H. D.     The first applicant’s request under Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 87 .     On 1 June 2012, the first day of acceptance by the Czech Republic of Russia’s accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, the first applicant filed a request under Article 21 of the Convention for securing the effective exercise of his “access rights” in respect of his daughter, the second applicant. 88 .     On 21 August 2012 the Office for the Legal Protection of Children (“the Czech Central Authority”) informed the Russian Ministry of Education and Science (“the Russian Central Authority”) that the first applicant had discovered the whereabouts of O.H. in Vologda Region. However, he had not seen his daughter. 89.     As the Russian Central Authority had not replied to the above ‑ mentioned letters, on 1   October 2012 a reminder was sent to it. 90.     On 1 November 2012, at the request of the Czech Central Authority, the Ambassador of the Czech Republic in Moscow sent a letter to the Russian Central Authority. 91.     On 5   March 2013 the Russian Central Authority replied that it was not possible to establish O.H. and the second applicant’s place of residence. 92.     In the meantime, on 12   December 2012 and 27 March 2013 the Czech Central Authority contacted the Russian Children’s Ombudsman about the same issue. The Czech Authority has not yet received a reply. 93.     On 21 May and 6 September 2013 the Czech Central Authority sent further letters to the Russian Central Authority. No reply has been received. Another reminder was sent on 13   December 2013. 94 .     On 11 November 2013 the Czech Central Authority sent a letter to the Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private Law asking for help in securing effective cooperation between the Czech and Russian Central Authorities. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW A.     The Hague Convention of 25   October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 95 .     The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) entered into force in respect of the Czech Republic on 1   March 1998 and in respect of Russia on 1   October 2011. On 1 June 2012 the Czech Republic accepted Russia’s accession to the Convention. For the relevant provisions of the Hague Convention see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 34, ECHR 2013. 96.     In the present context reference is made to the following provisions of the Hague Convention: Article 3 “The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where - (a)     it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and (b)     at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.” Article 21 “An application to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access may be presented to the Central Authorities of the Contracting States in the same way as an application for the return of a child. The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights. The Central Authorities, either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organising or protecting these rights and securing respect for the conditions to which the exercise of these rights may be subject.” Article 35 “This Convention shall apply as between Contracting States only to wrongful removals or retentions occurring after its entry into force in those States. ...” B.     The International Convention of 20   November 1989 on the Rights of the Child 97.     The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified both by Russia and the Czech Republic. For the relevant provisions of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child see X v. Latvia , cited above, §§   37 ‑ 39; and Maumousseau and Washington v. France , no.   39388/05, §   44, 6   December 2007. C.     Treaty of 12   August 1982 between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases 98.     The relevant provisions of the Treaty read as follows: Article 9 “Service of documents shall be certified by a confirmation signed by the person on whom the document was served and officially sealed and signed by a competent authority responsible for the service with indication of the date of service, or by a confirmation issued by that competent authority with indication of the means, the place and the time of service.” Article 10 “1.     Contracting Parties are entitled to serve documents on their citizens through their diplomatic missions or consular establishments ...” Article 18 “In case of initiation of court proceedings in a case between the same parties and on the same legal dispute in courts of both Contracting Parties ... the court which initiated the proceedings later shall discontinue them.” Article 25 “If one of the spouses is a citizen of one Contracting Party and the other spouse is a citizen of another Contracting Party, and one spouse lives on the territory of one Contracting party and the other spouse on the territory of the other Contracting Party, their private non-pecuniary relations are determined by the law of the Contracting Party on the territory on which they had their last common place of residence.” Article 30 “1.     Legal relations between parents and children shall be determined in accordance with the law of the Contracting Party in which the child permanently resides ...” Article 55 “1.     A request for compulsory execution of a judgment shall be lodged with the court which decided on the case in the first instance. This court forwards the request, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 3, to the court competent to take a decision on the matter. If the person lodging the request for compulsory execution of the judgment is domiciled or resident on the territory of the Contracting Party where the judgment is to be executed, such request may be lodged directly with the competent Court of the Contracting Party ...” Article 60 “Recognition and compulsory execution of a judgment may be refused in the following cases: ... c)     if the person who initiated the request or the defendant have not participated in the proceedings because they or their representative were not duly and timely served with court summons or due to the fact that notification was carried out only by way of a public announcement or by other means not provided for by the present Treaty ...” D.     Relevant Russian law 1.     The Constitution 99.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 15 “1.     The Constitution of the Russian Federation has supreme juridical force and direct effect and is applicable throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation shall not contradict the Constitution ... 4.     The universally-recognised norms of international law and international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system. If an international treaty or agreement of the Russian Federation stipulates other rules