CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; 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 } .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 } .s245ADC1D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0.05pt; 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 } .s5E503E34 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s14567F15 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA5F256BE { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s96B22F9F { width:184.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s57421ECC { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF A.H. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 6033/13, 8927/13, 10549/13, 12275/13, 23890/13, 26309/13, 27161/13, 29197/13, 32224/13, 32331/13, 32351/13, 32368/13, 37173/13, 38490/13, 42340/13 and 42403/13)               JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 12 December 2017 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   STRASBOURG   17 January 2017   FINAL   03/07/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of A.H. and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The cases originated in sixteen applications (nos. 6033/13, 8927/13, 10549/13, 12275/13, 23890/13, 26309/13, 27161/13, 29197/13, 32224/13, 32331/13, 32351/13, 32368/13, 37173/13, 38490/13, 42340/13 and 42403/13) 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 forty-five nationals of the United States of America on their own behalf and on behalf of twenty-seven children who are Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The President of the Section acceded to the applicants’ request not to have their names disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The applicants in cases nos. 6033/13, 8927/13, 10549/13, 12275/13, 23890/13, 26309/13, 29197/13, 32224/13, 32331/13, 32351/13, 32368/13, 37173/13, 38490/13, 42340/13 and 42403/13 were represented before the Court by Ms Marina Zakharina, Ms Valentina Bokareva, Ms Viktoria Ivleva-Yorke, Ms Natasha Lisman, Ms Anna Maralyan, Ms Oksana Preobrazhenskaya and Ms Karinna Moskalenko [1] . The applicants in case no.   27161/13 were represented before the Court by Irina O’Rear, a lawyer practising in Russia. 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 applicants complained about the application to them of the ban on the adoption of Russian children by US nationals of provided in Law   no.   272-FZ. 4.     Between 13 March and 4 July 2013 the President decided to grant the cases priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, confidentiality under Rule 33 § 3 of the Rules of Court, and anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court. 5.     On 4 November 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government. 6.     Leave to intervene in the written proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2) was given to the Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 1.     General background (a)     Adoption procedure 7.     The US nationals (“the US applicants”) started proceedings for the adoption of children from Russia between 2010 and 2012. They had complied with the requirements set by the United States authorities, having obtained favourable appraisals of their living and financial conditions and their suitability to adopt a child. Some of the applicants had had to comply with additional requirements laid down in the Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Regarding Cooperation in Adoption of Children (“Bilateral Agreement on Adoption”) upon its entry into force on 1   November 2012. They then applied to the competent Russian authorities who, except in those cases where the adoption proceedings had focussed on a particular child from the outset, provided them with information concerning the children who were available for adoption. 8.     In most cases the US applicants received a positive decision from the Russian authorities regarding both the impossibility of placing the child in a Russian family and their suitability to become adoptive parents. As part of the adoption procedure, they obtained a referral to visit the child concerned, which enabled them to spend several days with him or her at the respective orphanage. They visited the children and reaffirmed their formal agreement to adopt them. In some cases, according to the US applicants, they had formed a bond with the child even before initiating the adoption procedure, and one case concerned the adoption of the brother of a previously adopted girl (cases nos. 23890/13, 37173/13 and 42340/13 respectively; see the specific circumstances below). In such cases the adoption procedure referred to a particular child from the outset. Many of the prospective adoptive children suffer from serious health issues and require specialist medical care. 9.     By the end of 2012 most of the US applicants had completed all the requisite steps of the adoption procedure prior to submitting the adoption application to a court. However, on 21 December 2012 the Russian State Duma adopted the Federal Law no. 272-FZ on Measures in respect of Persons Involved in a Breach of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Rights and Freedoms of Nationals of the Russian Federation (“Law no.   272 ‑ FZ”), which, inter alia , banned the adoption of Russian children by nationals of the United States. The law entered into force on 1 January 2013. 10.     Adoption proceedings were halted in respect of those US applicants who had not submitted an adoption application to a court before the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 11.     In respect of those US applicants who had submitted an adoption application to a court but had not attended a hearing before the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ, the courts discontinued the adoption proceedings, relying on Law no. 272-FZ. Some of the applicants appealed. Their appeals were dismissed. 12.     Applications for adoption submitted by US nationals after 1   January 2013 were rejected on procedural grounds, with similar reference to Law no. 272-FZ. Where an application had been submitted on behalf of the US applicants by an adoption agency, it was rejected on the grounds that the agency could not submit an application to the court because the activities of such agencies had been banned. Where the application had been submitted by some other kind of representative, it was rejected because it should have been submitted by such an adoption agency only. 13.     The US applicants were subsequently removed from the State databank containing information on prospective adoptive parents, meaning that they could no longer be considered as such. 14.     After spring 2013 some of the prospective adoptive children were transferred for adoption by different families or placed in foster families. (b)     Circumstances surrounding the entry into force of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption and Law no. 272-FZ 15.     On 13 July 2011 the United States and the Russian Federation signed the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption setting out the procedure for intercountry adoption between the two States. It entered into force on 1   November 2012. 16.     On 21 December 2012 the Russian State Duma adopted Law no.   272-FZ ‒ which was signed by the President on 28   December 2012 ‒ also known as the “Anti-Magnitsky Law” or the “Dima Yakovlev Law” due to the circumstances underlying its adoption. The law has been described as a response to the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 passed by the United States Congress in November/December 2012 and signed by the US President on 14 December 2012 (the “Magnitsky Act”). The Magnitsky Act imposed sanctions on the Russian officials who were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who had exposed alleged large-scale tax fraud involving State officials and subsequently died in custody. The Magnitsky Act prohibited the Russian officials from entering the United States and using the United States’ banking system. The list of the eighteen individuals concerned was made public by the Administration of the President of the United States. 17.     The Russian authorities’ response involved the passing of a similar act in respect of United States nationals responsible for gross human rights violations, prohibiting their entry into Russia and freezing their assets within Russia. However, Section 4 § 1 of Law no.   272 ‑ FZ also introduced a ban on the adoption of Russian children by United States nationals. The introduction of that provision was prompted by the death in 2008 of Dima Yakovlev, a Russian toddler adopted by United States nationals. He was left alone for nine hours strapped in his adoptive father’s car after the latter forgot to take him to his day-care centre. The father was eventually acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. This news created a stir in the Russian media and resulted in the highlighting of a number of abuse cases involving Russian children adopted by United States nationals, leading to calls from certain Russian authorities to restrict or end adoptions by US nationals. 18.     On 28 December 2012 the United States Department of State released a statement concerning the adoption of Law no. 272-FZ which read, insofar as relevant: “We deeply regret Russia’s passage of a law ending inter-country adoptions between the United States and Russia and restricting Russian civil society organizations that work with American partners. American families have adopted over 60,000 Russian children over the past 20 years, and the vast majority of these children are now thriving thanks to their parents’ loving support. The Russian government’s politically motivated decision will reduce adoption possibilities for children who are now under institutional care. We regret that the Russian government has taken this step rather than seek to implement the bilateral adoption agreement that entered into force in November. We are further concerned about statements that adoptions already underway may be stopped and hope that the Russian government would allow those children who have already met and bonded with their future parents to finish the necessary legal procedures so that they can join their families.” 19.     On 1 January 2013 Law no. 272-FZ entered into force. On the same date the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the US Embassy in Moscow that, pursuant to Section 4 § 2 of Law no. 272-FZ, Russia was terminating the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption. Pursuant to Article 17 of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, it should have remained in force until one year from the date on which one of the States Parties informed the other Party of its intention to terminate the Agreement, and this move therefore caused confusion regarding the validity of the agreement and the outcome of the pending adoption cases involving prospective adoptive parents from the United States. 20.     During a briefing on 8 January 2013, a United States Department of State spokesperson announced that Russia had informed the United States of its intention to suspend the Bilateral Adoption Agreement. 21.     On 10 January 2013 news agencies including the BBC and RIA Novosti reported that the Russian President’s Press Secretary had stated that the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption was still in force on that date and that it would remain valid until early January 2014. On the afternoon of the same day the Russian Ministry of External Affairs posted a comment on its website stating that Russia had not merely suspended the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption but had terminated it, and that a communication to this effect had been handed over to the United States Embassy in Moscow on 1 January 2013. 22 .     On 13 January 2013 about twenty thousand people gathered on the streets of Moscow to take part in an action called March Against Scoundrels to protest against Law no. 272-FZ. 23.     The law was also criticised by human rights organisations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and received numerous negative reactions from the media, including Time , The Economist and The Guardian . Most of the critical commentators argued that the law was politically motivated and detrimental to the children’s interests. 24.     On 15 January 2013 forty-eight members of the United States Congress sent a letter to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, on behalf of the United States families affected by Law no. 272-FZ. The letter requested exemption for families who were in the final stages of the adoption procedure and invited Russia to re-join the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption. 25.     On 22 January 2013 the Russian Supreme Court issued a letter instructing the lower courts to allow the transfer of adopted Russian children into families of United States nationals where the adoption decision had been taken prior to 1 January 2013, even if it had entered into force after that date. 26.     Proceedings in all cases involving prospective adoptive parents from the United States in which a decision on adoption had not been delivered before 1 January 2013 were halted, irrespective of the status of the proceedings. 27 .     On 2 July 2013 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) adopted a Resolution on Intercountry Adoption in which it called on member States “to recognize the foundational bond between prospective adoptive parents and the child and to honor and protect these nascent families” and urged them “to resolve differences, disputes, and controversies related to intercountry adoptions in a positive and humanitarian spirit” so as “to avoid any general, indiscriminate disruption of intercountry adoptions already in progress that could jeopardize the best interests of the child, harm the nascent family, or deter prospective adoptive parents from pursuing an intercountry adoption” see paragraph 301 below). Although Russia was not specifically referred to in the Resolution, it was introduced by US Senator Roger Wicker in direct response to the ban on adoptions by United States nationals. 28.     According to a news report by RIA Novosti of 5 July 2013, the Russian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed as futile any attempts by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to make Russia annul the previously adopted decisions concerning intercountry adoption, the latter being in full compliance with international law. 2.     Specific circumstances (a)     Application no. 6033/13 29.     Application no. 6033/13 was lodged on 22 January 2013 by three groups of applicants. (i)     First group of applicants 30.     A.J.H., born on 16 May 1976, and J.A.H., born on 26 June 1977, who live in Vaughn, Montana, United States (the US applicants), and D.M., who was born on 17 August 2009 and lives in Lobnya, the Moscow Region. 31.     D.M. suffers, in particular, from Down syndrome, delayed psychological and speech development, congenital heart disease and insufficient blood flow. He was born prematurely. 32.     Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicants were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 6 August 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 33.     On 24 September 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit D.M. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited him every day between 24 and 28 September 2012 and again between 10 and either 13 or 14 January 2013 [2] . Each visit lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. 34.     On 27 September 2012 the US applicants formally agreed to adopt D.M. 35.     On 15 November 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing initially scheduled for 21   December 2012 was rescheduled for 15 January 2013 at the applicants’ request. 36.     On 10 January 2013 the US applicants arrived in Russia and visited D.M. every day between 10 and either 13 or 14 January 2013 [3] . 37.     On 15 January 2013 the US applicants appeared before the court. However, the hearing was adjourned at the request of the Ministry of Education of the Moscow Region, which cited a lack of guidance from the Supreme Court of Russia on the application of Law no. 272-FZ. A new hearing was scheduled for 21 January 2013. 38.       On 21 January 2013 the US applicants appeared before the court. However, the Moscow Regional Court postponed the hearing until 11   February 2013 in response to a similar request from the Ministry of Education of the Moscow Region. 39.       On 22 January 2013 the US applicants left for the United States. They booked a flight for 9 February 2013 in order to be present at the next hearing. 40.       On 23 January 2013 the US applicants’ representative, Ms   Zakharina [4] , was informed that the hearing had been rescheduled for an earlier date, namely 30   January 2013. This left the US applicants insufficient time to reschedule their trip to Russia, and they were unable to be present at the hearing. 41.     On 30 January 2013 the Moscow Regional Court discontinued the adoption procedure on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt D.M. The US applicants appealed. 42.     On 14 May 2013 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 January 2013. The US applicants lodged cassation appeal. 43.     On 26 August 2013 the Moscow Regional Court refused leave to have the cassation appeal examined by the Presidium. 44.     According to the Government, D.M. has been placed with a foster family. (ii)     Second group of applicants 45.     G.D.C., born on 14 August 1980 and who lives in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States (“the US applicant”), and E.G., who was born on 28   May 2010 and lives in St.   Petersburg. 46.     E.G. is developmentally delayed, HIV positive and suffers from ectopic dermatitis. 47.     The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in December   2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicant was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 8 November 2012. She was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 48.     On 28 November 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit E.G. from the Ministry of Education and Science. She visited her every day between 28 November and 1 December 2012. Each visit lasted approximately two hours. 49.     On 3 December 2012 the US applicant formally agreed to adopt E.G. 50.     On 11 February 2013 the adoption application was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court. 51.     On 13 February 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the application on the grounds that G.D.C. could not be represented by her representative, E.F., because an application of this kind could only be submitted by an authorised agency. The US applicant appealed. 52.     On 5 March 2013 the US applicant tried to visit E.G. at the orphanage but was denied access. 53.     On 12 March 2013 the US applicant resubmitted the application through another representative, O.T. 54.     On 21 March 2013 the second application was rejected for the same reasons. The US applicant appealed. 55.     On 2 and 12 April 2013 the St.   Petersburg City Court dismissed the appeals against its decisions of 13 February and 21 March 2013 respectively. 56.     On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 57.     According to the Government, E.G. has been placed with a foster family. (iii)     Third group of applicants 58.     J.M., born on 1 June 1981, and A.M., born on 14 April 1982, who live in Gainesville, Georgia, United States (the US applicants), and V.T., who was born on 30 September 2008 and lives in Mytischy, the Moscow Region. 59.     V.T. is developmentally delayed, he suffers from Down syndrome, hearing loss, heterotropy, intrauterine hypoxia, congenital heart disease (he underwent heart surgery in 2009 where an electric cardiostimulator was implanted), and a number of other illnesses. 60.     The US applicants, who have two biological children and one adopted child, initiated the procedure to adopt another child in March 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 17 August 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 61.     On 1 October 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit V.T. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited him every day between 1 and 5 October 2012 and again between 17 and 21 January 2013. Each visit lasted four hours. 62.     On 3 October 2012 the US applicants formally agreed to adopt V.T. 63.     On 30 November 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing initially scheduled for 22   January 2013 was rescheduled for 12 February 2013 at the request of the Ministry of Education. However, on the same date the prosecutor requested that the proceedings be speeded up due to the uncertainty over the child’s fate. Eventually the hearing was rescheduled for 31 January 2013. 64.     On 31 January 2013 the Moscow Regional Court discontinued the adoption procedure on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt V.T. The US applicants appealed. 65.     On 14 May 2013 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 January 2013 on appeal. The US applicants lodged cassation appeal. 66.     On 10 December 2013 the Moscow Regional Court refused leave to have the cassation appeal examined by the Presidium. 67.     On 22 April 2013 the US applicants were removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents, an action of which they were not informed until 26 April 2013. 68.     According to the Government, V.T. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about him. (b)     Application no. 8927/13 69.     Application no. 8927/13 was lodged on 4 February 2013 by J.J., born on 12 December 1983, and Jn.J., born on 25 January 1984, who live in Dover, New Jersey, United States (the US applicants), and A.M., who was born on 27 January 2007 and lives in Moscow. 70.     A.M. is HIV positive and suffers from developmental disorders, strabismus and enuresis. 71.     The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in March 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 16 November 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 72.     On 26 November 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.M. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited her every day between 27 and 30 November 2012. Each visit lasted two to three hours. 73.     On 28 December 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing was first scheduled for 8   February 2013, but then rescheduled for 31 January 2013. As it left the US applicants insufficient time to reschedule their trip to Russia, they asked the court to postpone the hearing. 74.     On 31 January 2013 the Moscow Regional Court rejected the request to postpone the hearing and discontinued the adoption procedure on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt V.T. The US applicants appealed. 75.     On 14 May 2013 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 January 2013 on appeal. 76.     On 22 April 2013 the US applicants were removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 77.     According to the Government, A.M. has been placed with a foster family. (c)     Application no. 10549/13 78.     Application no. 10549/13 was lodged on 11 February 2013 by J.E.L., born on 1 June 1962 and A.M.L., born on 4 February 1972, who live in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, United States (the US applicants), and S.T., who was born on 29 November 2011 and lives in Volgograd. 79.     S.T. had prenatal contact with HIV and hepatitis C and suffers from a developmental disorder. 80.     The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in December   2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 13 June 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Christian World Adoptions, Inc.”. 81.     On 23 October 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit S.T. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited her twice a day between 24 and 29 October 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 82.     On 3 December 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the Volgograd Regional Court. 83.     On 1 February 2013 the adoption procedure was discontinued on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt S.T. 84.     On 15 February 2013 the US applicants appealed. On 20   February 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court stayed the appeal proceedings and instructed the US applicants to correct certain deficiencies by 20 March 2013. On 3 April 2013 the appeal statement was returned to the US applicants. On 25 April 2013 they resubmitted the appeal. On 7   May 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the time-limit for appeal. 85.     On 20 June 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 February 2013. 86.     On 14 February 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 87.     S.T. has been adopted by a different adoptive family. (d)     Application no. 12275/13 88.     Application no. 12275/13 was lodged on 18 February 2013 by nine groups of applicants. (i)     First group of applicants 89.     M.S.P., born on 15 May 1974, and A.N.P., born on 6 March 1980, who live in Papillon, Nebraska, United States (the US applicants), and A.A., who was born on 21 June 2005 and lives in St. Petersburg. 90.     A.A. suffers from Down syndrome, moderate mental deficiency, delay in physical development, strabismus, planovalgus deformity, and hyperbilirubinemia. 91.     The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in August 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 6 September 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 92.     On 8 October 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.A. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St. Petersburg Administration. They visited her on three days in October 2012. Each visit lasted between one and a half and two hours. 93.     On 20 December 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the St. Petersburg City court. 94.     On 24 December 2012 the application was returned to the US applicants’ representative, E.F. In the court’s ruling, it was stated that it had been returned at E.F.’s request. According to the US applicants, they did not ask E.F. to withdraw the application, and she did not apply to the court to have it withdrawn. Rather, the court asked her to take it back. The US applicants were not informed of this ruling, but having learned about it, they filed a complaint against it, arguing that they had never requested their representative to withdraw the application and that the power of attorney did not empower her to do that. On 4 June 2013 the St.   Petersburg City Court set aside the ruling of 24 December 2012. It appears that no further decisions were taken in the case. 95.     On 31 May 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 96.     According to the Government, A.A. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about her. (ii)     Second group of applicants 97.     D.S.G., born on 29 May 1974 and who lives in New York, New York, United States (the US applicant), and O.N., who was born on 24   June   2011 and lives in St. Petersburg. 98.     O.N. suffers from a mixed developmental disorder, atopic dermatitis, food allergies and hypermetria of both eyes with astigmatism. 99.     The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in December   2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, she was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 9 October 2012. She was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “International Assistance Group, Inc.”. 100.     On 24 December 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit O.N. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. She visited her twice a day between 24 and 28   December 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 101.     On 28 December 2012 the US applicant formally agreed to adopt O.N. 102.     On 11   February 2013 the adoption application was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court by the adoption agency. 103.     On 13 February 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the application on the grounds that as of 1   January 2013 the agency’s activity had been banned in Russia pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ. On 4 March 2013 the US applicant appealed. 104.     On 25 March 2013 the appeal statement was returned to the US applicant without examination on the grounds that it had been lodged outside the applicable time-limit. 105.     On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 106.     According to the Government, O.N. has been adopted by a different adoptive family. (iii)     Third group of applicants 107.     B.C., born on 13 June 1965, and J.W.S., born on 4 January 1955, who live in Sag Harbor, New York, United States (the US applicants), and A.R., who was born on 24 March 2010 and lives in St. Petersburg. 108.     A.R. was abandoned by her parents, who suffered from substance addictions, at the age of eleven months. She is hepatitis C positive and suffers from a mixed developmental disorder and planovalgus deformity. 109.     The US applicants had two children, a son and a daughter. After their daughter died of paediatric cancer at the age of twelve, they decided to adopt a child, since their son did not wish to be an only child. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in February 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 18 October 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “International Assistance Group, Inc.”. 110.     On 28 November 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.R. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. They visited her twice a day between 27 and 30   November 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 111.     On 3 December 2012 the US applicants formally agreed to adopt A.R. 112.     On 10 February 2013 the adoption application was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court by the adoption agency. 113.     On 13 February 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the application on the grounds that, as of 1 January 2013, the agency’s activity had been banned in Russia pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ. 114.     On 31 May 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 115.     According to the Government, A.R. has been adopted by a different adoptive family. (iv)     Fourth group of applicants 116.     T.L.B.-S., born on 21 June 1968 and who lives in Oldtown, Maryland, United States (the US applicant), and V.O., who was born on 7   August 2005 and lives in St. Petersburg. 117.     V.O. suffers from Down syndrome, mental deficiency, umbilical hernia, planovalgus deformity, atopic dermatitis and hypermetria of a light degree. 118.     The US applicant has two biological children and a son adopted from Russia. She decided to adopt another child and, having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, she was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 1   November 2012. The US applicant was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Small World Adoption Foundation of Missouri Inc.”. 119.     On 12 November 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit V.O. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. She visited her daily on several days in November 2012. Each visit lasted between one and a half and two hours. 120.     On 19 November 2012 the US applicant formally agreed to adopt V.O. 121.     According to the US applicant, she did not have sufficient time to prepare all the necessary documents in order to be able to submit the adoption application to a court before the entry into force of Law no.   272 ‑ FZ. After its entry into force she realised that this would be futile, although she remained willing to adopt V.O. 122.     On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 123.     According to the Government, V.O. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about her. (v)     Fifth group of applicants 124.     S.M., born on 12 May 1966, and K.M., born on 30 April 1968, who live in Lake Elsinore, California, United States (the US applicants), and V.G., who was born on 19 December 2005 and lives in St.   Petersburg. 125.     V.G. suffers from Down syndrome, moderate mental deficiency, strabismus and hypermetria. 126.     Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicants were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 9 February 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 127.     On 18 July 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit V.G. They visited her every day between 18 and 20 July 2012. Each visit lasted three hours. 128.     On 25 July 2012 the US applicants formally agreed to adopt V.G. 129.     On 26 November 2012 the adoption application was submitted to a court by the US applicants’ representative E.F. from the adoption agency. 130.     According to the Government, on 30 November 2012 [5] the St.   Petersburg City Court stayed the proceedings and instructed the US applicants to rectify certain shortcomings by 30 December 2012 [6] . In particular, they were asked to corroborate the powers of their representative to act as such in matters concerning adoption in view of the fact that the power of attorney had been issued to E.F. as a private person, whereas pursuant to Article 4 § 4 of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption only authorised agencies could act as representatives. On 9 January 2013 the application was returned to E.F. on the grounds that the shortcomings had not been rectified. 131.     According to the US applicants, they were never informed of any alleged shortcomings in their adoption application. Furthermore, several days before 1 January 2013 a judge had called E.F. and had asked her to withdraw the application, even though E.F.’s power of attorney did not authorise her to do so. Several days later E.F. found out that the application had been “lost” and the only record of submission was a note in the court’s register. 132.     The US applicants also allege that on 11 January 2012 the head of a branch of adoption agency “Hand in Hand” had asked the Chairman of the St.   Petersburg Committee on Social Policy for permission to continue its activity as an adoption agency in St. Petersburg through its legal representatives E.F. and I.Z. The permission was granted, and on 11   January 2012 the adoption agency “Hand in Hand” issued E.F. with a power of attorney valid for three years to represent the interests of adoptive parents before the courts of St. Petersburg. 133.     According to the Government, the St.   Petersburg Committee on Social Policy did not have the competence to authorise the activity of an adoption agency. The matter fell within the exclusive competence of the Ministry of Education. E.F. and I.Z. were registered at the Ministry of Education as employees of the adoption agency “Hand in Hand” during the period 2009-11. 134.     According to the US applicants, on 12 and 28 March and 3   April 2013 their representative O.T. requested a copy of the St. Petersburg City Court’s ruling on their application. However, the file was not in the registry and she was not presented with a copy. On 11 April 2013 O.T. resubmitted her request to Judge G. and the President of the St. Petersburg City Court. In a letter of 16 April 2013 Judge G. refused to provide her with a copy of the ruling. On 22 April 2013 O.T. filed a complaint against the refusal. It is not clear whether the complaint has been examined. 135.     According to the Government, O.T.’s request was refused as there were no procedural means whereby to provide persons acting as intermediaries in adoption proceedings with copies of documents. 136.     On 31 May 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 137.     According to the Government, V.G. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about her. (vi)     Sixth group of applicants 138.     Q.S., born on 8 April 1979, and W.S., born on 6 May 1980, who live in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States (the US applicants), and D.K., who was born on 26 May 2011 and lives in Perm. 139.     D.K. suffers from Down syndrome, psychomotor development delay, anomaly in heart development, partial atrophy of optic discs, astigmatism and cytomegalovirus infection. 140.     The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in July 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicants were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 11 December 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Global Adoption Services Inc.”. 141.     On 19 December 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit D.K. They visited her twice a day between 19 and 21 December 2012. Each visit lasted approximately two hours. 142.     On 21 December 2012 the US applicants formally agreed to adopt D.K. 143.     The adoption application was not submitted to the court. According to the US applicants, it would have been submitted if it had not been for the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 144.     According to the Government, on 24 April 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. According to the US applicants, they were never informed of this fact. 145.     According to the Government, D.K. has been placed with a foster family. (vii)     Seventh group of applicants 146.     S.A.K., born on 9 May 1960 and who lives in Chicago, Illinois, United States (the US applicant), and K.R., who was born on 31 May 2009 and lives in St. Petersburg. 147.     K.R. suffers from a mixed developmental disorder, planovalgus deformity, adenoids, hypertrophy of palatine tonsils, hepatosplenomegaly and physiological phimosis. 148.     The US applicant has already adopted a girl from Russia. She decided to adopt another child and initiated the adoption procedure in May   2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicant was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 9 October 2012. The US applicant was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “International Assistance Group Inc.”. 149.     On 21   November 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit K.R. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. She visited her every day between 21 and 23   November 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 150.     On 27 November 2012 the US applicant formally agreed to adopt K.R. 151.     On 11 February 2013 the adoption application was submitted to the St.   Petersburg City Court by T. from the adoption agency. 152.     On 13 February 2013 the court returned the application on the grounds that the activity of the adoption agency had been banned pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ. The US applicant appealed. 153.     On 27 March 2013 the appeal statement was returned on the grounds that it had been submitted in breach of procedural rules. In particular, it failed to state whether the US applicant had been provided with a translation of the ruling and her signature had not been certified by a notary. The US applicant filed a complaint against this ruling. 154.     On 20 June 2013 the complaint was returned without examination. 155.     On 31 May 2013 the US a