CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sAB51C47C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.94pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3B786E84 { width:22.69pt; display:inline-block } .sCE4BAE11 { width:181.12pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s6B737D45 { width:205.46pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF UZBYAKOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 71160/13)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Family life • Positive obligations • Dismissal of biological father’s application for revocation of his infant daughter’s adoption after her mother’s death while he was in detention • Deficient process at adoption-stage, notwithstanding applicant’s prior negligence in establishing paternity, given court’s failure to hear any relatives despite being informed of existence of siblings and biological father • Absence under relevant domestic law of formal grounds for revoking adoption order not sufficient in itself to justify courts’ refusal to revoke order • Lack of adequate and in-depth examination of arguments and all relevant factors and interests at stake   STRASBOURG 5 May 2020   FINAL   12/10/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Uzbyakov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   María Elósegui,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application 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 Russian national, Mr   Sergey Stanislavovich Uzbyakov (“the applicant”), on 9 October 2013; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life on account of the adoption of his daughter D. and subsequent refusal by the domestic courts to recognise in law his paternity in her respect and to annul her adoption, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 16 April 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION The present case concerns the adoption by third parties of the applicant’s youngest daughter after the death of his partner. The applicant cohabited with his partner for approximately seventeen years, and his youngest daughter was one of five children born as a result of that relationship. Prior to his partner’s death the applicant had no formally recognised parental status in respect of the children. Whilst his paternity was eventually recognised in respect of the four other children and he received formal parental status and thus full parental authority in respect of them, the domestic authorities refused to recognise his paternity in respect of his youngest daughter, with reference to the fact that by that moment she had been adopted. They also refused to revoke the adoption order, with reference to the absence of the formal grounds under the relevant national law to do so. THE FACTS 1.     The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Kurganovka. He was granted legal aid and was represented by Mr   E.V. Markov, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Government to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr M.   Galperin, his successor in that office. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background to the case 4 .     The applicant arrived from Uzbekistan and settled in Russia in the 1990s. For some time he remained in Russia illegally. In February 2010 he obtained a residence permit which was valid until 15 February 2013. On 15   August 2013 he obtained Russian nationality. 5 .     In 1994 the applicant started cohabiting with Ms   O.M. They had five children: S., born in 1997; R., born in 2002; Ser., born in 2003; V., born in 2007; and D., born on 29 November 2009. The applicant, Ms   O.M. and their five children lived together. 6 .     The applicant states that he was not registered as the children’s father as at the material time he was residing in Russia illegally and had no Russian identification documents. At birth, the children were issued with birth certificates on which Ms   O.M. was indicated as being their mother, whereas there was a dash in the section concerning the father; the children’s patronymic reflected the applicant’s first name, and they were given Ms   O.M.’s surname. 7 .     On 21 January 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed theft, and he was placed in pre-trial detention. 8.     On 20   April 2011 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued and he was released. EVENTS AFTER Ms O.M.’s death Children’s placement in public and eventually foster care 9 .     While the applicant was in custody, on 4 February 2011 Ms   O.M. died. At some point – presumably in March 2011 – the children were taken into public care. The four elder children were placed in a boarding school for orphans, but the youngest child, D., who was fourteen months old at that time, could not be placed in the same institution in view of her young age, and she was transferred to a children’s home. 10.     In March 2011, while still in detention, the applicant found out about Ms   O.M.’s death. He then started taking steps with a view to having his paternity of the five children recognised (see paragraphs 20-24 below). 11 .     D. was placed at the children’s home on 9 March 2011. On the same date, a local custody and guardianship authority had informed Ms N.S., a third person unrelated to D., who was on the list of prospective adoptive parents, about the girl and gave her a referral ( направление ) to visit D. at the children’s home (see paragraph 33 below). 12 .     On 18 March 2011 the Administration of the Sosnovskiy District of the Tambov Region (“the childcare authority”) appointed Ms   N.S. as D.’s legal guardian. 13.     On the same day Ms   N.S. took D. from the children’s home and took the girl to her and her husband’s place of residence in the town of Morshansk in the Tambov Region of Russia. The girl has been living there with them ever since. 14 .     On 16 May 2011 a local custody and guardianship authority appointed Ms O.M.’s sister, Ms O.E., as the legal guardian of the four elder children, S., R., Ser. and V. They were all transferred into her care and started living with her. D.’s adoption 15.     On an unspecified date Ms   N.S. and her husband, Mr   S.S., applied to adopt D. 16 .     On 8 September 2011 the Morshanskiy District Court of the Tambov Region (“the Morshanskiy District Court”) examined that application. 17 .     In the proceedings before the court, the childcare authority expressed an opinion in favour of D.’s adoption by Ms   N.S. and Mr   S.S. Its representative stated, in particular, that the girl had the social status of a child left without parental care, as she had no father and her mother had died. The representative also stated that “during the whole period of D.’s stay in the children’s home, her relatives had not visited her and had not lodged any application to establish legal guardianship in respect of her”. The representative also mentioned that D. had four siblings who were being brought up in another foster family at that time and were living in the Penza Region. 18 .     The Morshanskiy District Court examined D.’s birth certificate and noted that it only contained information about the girl’s mother, who had died, and consequently the child had been left without parental care and had been placed in a children’s home, where she had remained from 9 to 18   March 2011. It further observed that on 18 March 2011 D. had been transferred to Ms   N.S., who had been appointed her legal guardian on the same date, and that she had been living with Ms   N.S.’s family since then. The court also noted that Ms   N.S. and Mr   S.S. had been taking good care of D. and she was surrounded by love and attention, and that they had good living conditions suitable for the child and sufficient financial resources to support her. The court concluded that Ms   N.S. and Mr   S.S. satisfied all the statutory conditions to be adoptive parents, and that there were no circumstances under the relevant provisions of the Russian Family Code which would rule out the possibility of them becoming adoptive parents. The court thus granted them a full adoption order in respect of D., and ordered that the girl’s first name be changed, as requested by the adoptive parents, and that her surname be changed to reflect their surname. It also ordered that the child’s place of birth be changed to Morshansk, in the Tambov Region. 19 .     The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force ten days after its delivery. The applicant’s attempts to have his children returned 20 .     In March 2011, whilst still in detention, the applicant applied to the justice of the peace of the 4 th Court Circuit of the Morshanskiy District of the Tambov Region, seeking to have his paternity established in respect of his five children and the children returned to his care. 21 .     On 9 March 2011 the justice of the peace returned the applicant’s claim, stating that she had no jurisdiction to examine such cases, and inviting the applicant to lodge his claim with the Morshanskiy District Court. 22 .     The applicant applied to the Morshanskiy District Court. In his claim, he listed his five children’s names, patronymics and surnames, and their dates of birth, and asked the court to establish his paternity in respect of them. 23 .     On 11 April 2011 the Morshanskiy District Court returned the applicant’s claim, as it had no territorial jurisdiction to examine it. It noted that, in his claim, the applicant had pointed out that after their mother’s death all five children had been placed in relevant institutions in the Sosnovskiy District in Tambov. The court stated that under the relevant procedural law, the claim should be lodged in the area of the children’s actual place of residence, that is, in the district where those institutions were located. The court also noted that the claim did not comply with some of the formal requirements set out in domestic law. It pointed out that it was open to the applicant to remedy those shortcomings and resubmit his claim. That decision was not appealed against and became final on 22 April 2011. 24 .     On 15 December 2011 the applicant resubmitted his claim to establish his paternity in respect of his five children to a court that had territorial jurisdiction – the Kamenka Town Court of the Penza Region (“the Kamenka Town Court”). It appears that the court severed the claim in respect of D. from the claim in respect of the other four children. Return of the four elder children 25 .     On 16 April 2012 the Kamenka Town Court established the applicant’s paternity in respect of S., R., Ser. and V., with the result that the applicant obtained formal parental status and thus full parental authority in respect of them. 26 .     On 9 June 2012 S., R., Ser. and V. were removed from Ms O.E.’s care and returned to the applicant. Prosecutor’s action 27 .     On an unspecified date the prosecutor of Morshansk, acting in the interests of D., brought civil proceedings with a view to having D.’s adoption order revoked. In the context of those proceedings, on 22   March 2012 the applicant, who was involved as a third party, found out about the judgment of 8   September 2011 (see paragraphs 16-19 above). 28 .     On 17 April 2012, at the prosecutor’s request, the Morshanskiy District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings brought by the applicant for recognition of his paternity in respect of D. (see paragraphs 31-48 below). The court stated that it was impossible to decide the case before the question of the applicant’s paternity in respect of D. had been resolved. 29.     On 20 December 2012, at the prosecutor’s request, the Morshanskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings, with reference to the judgment of 1 October 2012, as upheld on appeal on 13 November 2012 (see paragraphs 36-47 below). 30.     On 22 April 2013 the Tambov Regional Court upheld the decision of 20   December 2012 on appeal. Proceedings for recognition of paternity in respect of D. and for revocation of the adoption order Proceedings before the first-instance court 31 .     In the proceedings for recognition of his paternity in respect of D., the applicant found out that she had been adopted (see paragraph 27 above). He therefore supplemented his claim, requesting that the court revoke the adoption order. 32 .     At a hearing before the Kamenka Town Court, the applicant submitted that he had found out about the adoption after he had been involved as a third party in civil proceedings brought by a relevant prosecutor with a view to having the adoption order revoked. He argued that the adoption had been granted in violation of the law and was contrary to D.’s interests; in particular, under the relevant law, the separation of siblings was not permitted, and parents’ consent to adoption was required. He further argued that the relevant childcare authority had been aware that D. had siblings, and that those authorities, as well as the administrations of the institutions where his children had been placed after their mother’s death, had certainly been aware that the children had a father and aware of his whereabouts. He insisted: that D. was his daughter; that he and his elder son had collected Ms   O.M. and D. from the maternity hospital when D. had been born; that he had taken the necessary steps to have D.’s birth registered and her birth certificate issued; and that ultimately he had raised her. 33 .     Ms   N.S. stated before the first-instance court that as she had been on the list of prospective adoptive parents, on 9 March 2011 the relevant childcare authority had given her a referral ( направление ) to visit D. at the children’s home; on 18 March 2011 she had been appointed D.’s legal guardian, and on 8 September 2011 a full adoption order in respect of D. had been made in favour of her and her husband. 34 .     A number of witnesses, including S., the applicant’s elder son, confirmed: that the applicant and Ms   O.M. had cohabited and had had five children; that the applicant was the biological father of those children, including D.; and that he had taken care of them and supported them financially. S. also confirmed that he and the applicant had collected Ms   O.M. and D. from the maternity hospital after D.’s birth. 35 .     A representative from the Kamenskiy District custody and guardianship authority and a representative from the Representative for Human Rights in the Russian Federation supported the applicant’s claim, stating that the adoption had been granted in breach of family law and had been contrary to the interests of the minors in question. The representative from the Representative for Human Rights in the Russian Federation also argued that the judgment of 8 September 2011 granting the adoption had been deficient, as a number of issues had not been addressed and assessed. In particular: D. had been separated from her siblings; she had not been transferred into Ms O.E.’s guardianship, as the four other children had been; and the court had not obtained D.’s maternal grandfather’s consent to the adoption. Judgment of 1 October 2012 36 .     On 1 October 2012 the Kamenka Town Court delivered its judgment. 37 .     The court found it established that since March 2011 the applicant had been applying to courts with a view to having his paternity of his five children recognised in law. It also observed that the applicant’s paternity of his four elder children had been recognised, and that they were living with him at that point. The court also noted that he was not officially employed and had four dependent children. 38 .     The court further referred to witness statements, including those of S., the applicant’s elder son, and held that the evidence in its possession allowed it to conclude that D. had been born as a result of the relationship between Ms   O.M. and the applicant. However, the court considered that formal recognition of the applicant’s paternity in respect of D. would not make sense, as it would not lead to the restoration of his rights, in the absence of any grounds under the relevant domestic law for the revocation of D.’s adoption order. 39 .     The court held, in particular, that revocation of an adoption order was a measure used to protect the rights and interests of a child, and was allowed by Article 141 of the Russian Family Code (see paragraph 58 below) only when an adoption no longer corresponded to the interests of the child. The court quoted the provisions of the above-mentioned Article, and noted that it concerned guilty conduct on the part of adoptive parents and a failure on their part to comply with their relevant obligations, whereas no guilty conduct on the part of Ms   N.S. or Mr   S.S. in respect of D. had ever been established, nor was alleged by the applicant. 40 .     The court further referred to section 19 of ruling no. 8 of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 20 April 2006 (see paragraph 59 below), which stated that an adoption order could also be revoked in the absence of guilty conduct by the adoptive parents if, owing to circumstances within or beyond the adoptive parents’ control, there were no suitable conditions in the adoptive family for the child’s adequate rearing and upbringing. However, there were no grounds for revoking the adoption order in respect of D. on that basis either. The court pointed out that the adoptive parents were financially secure, had permanent jobs and proper living conditions, and were capable of ensuring the child’s harmonious development. 41 .     By that time the child had been living with the family of Ms   N.S. and Mr   S.S. for a year and a half. Beneficial conditions had been created for her development, and close relations had been built between her and her adoptive parents. Taking those factors into consideration, and with reference to the best interests of the child, the court considered that the applicant’s claim for revocation of the adoption order should not be granted. 42 .     The court further rejected the arguments of the applicant, the Kamenskiy District custody and guardianship authority and the Representative for Human Rights in the Russian Federation that D.’s adoption had been granted in breach of the relevant law (see paragraphs 32 and 35 above). It stated that the alleged breaches concerned the procedure for granting the adoption order rather than revoking it, and therefore they could not be regarded as being legally relevant to the issue of revocation of the adoption order. 43 .     The court therefore refused to recognise in law the applicant’s paternity in respect of D. and revoke the adoption order in respect of her. Appellate proceedings 44.     The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. He argued, in particular, that formal recognition of his paternity was essential, as it would enable him to have his right to appeal against the judgment of 8   September 2011 restored. He insisted that after it had found that he was D.’s natural father, the first-instance court should have revoked the adoption order even in the absence of guilty conduct by the adoptive parents, as his daughter should grow up with and be raised with her biological siblings in his family. 45 .     The Representative for Human Rights in the Russian Federation also appealed against the first-instance judgment on the applicant’s behalf. He supported the applicant’s argument that the adoption had breached national law. He also argued that by refusing to revoke the adoption order, the first ‑ instance court had distorted the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child as set out in various international instruments on the rights of the child, and breaching that principle amounted to a flagrant interference with the applicant’s family’s rights. D. had already suffered irreparable harm on account of her mother’s death, which had been exacerbated by the rupture of her ties with her natural family. He also pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights had repeatedly stated that a child’s ties with his or her family must be maintained; the fact that the girl had been adopted by third parties and had been living with them for some time should not be regarded as an insurmountable obstacle to the reunification of the applicant’s family. Thus, in the present case, revocation of the adoption order was necessary, in the best interests of D. and the applicant’s other children, in order to reunite the children with each other and with the applicant. 46 .     On 13 November 2012 the Penza Regional Court upheld the first ‑ instance judgment on appeal. It endorsed the first-instance court’s findings: that D. had been living with her adoptive family for over a year and a half; that there was a close emotional bond between the adoptive parents and the girl; that the adoptive parents had created conditions beneficial for D.’s development; and that therefore the adoption was in the child’s interests and there were no grounds under Article 141 of the Russian Family Code to revoke the order. In that connection, the appellate court also noted that “the law in force ... [did] not provide for a court’s establishment of the fact that a child was descended from a particular person constituting grounds for revoking an adoption order”. 47 .     The appellate court rejected the applicant’s arguments and those of the Representative for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, stating that the fact that the applicant was D.’s father, that he was willing and able to raise D., and that D. had siblings who suffered as a result of being separated from her, could not be taken into account, as those matters had no bearing on the first-instance court’s conclusion that revocation of the adoption order would not be in D.’s interests. Cassation proceedings 48 .     On 7 April and 25 June 2013 respectively the Penza Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed cassation appeals by the applicant against the decisions of 1 October and 13 November 2012. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE     The Family Code Legal provisions concerning the protection of children’s rights 49 .     Every child, that is to say every person under the age of eighteen, has the right to live and be brought up in a family so far as possible, the right to know his or her parents, the right to their care, and the right to live together with them, except where this is contrary to his or her interests (Article 54). 50 .     A child has the right to maintain contact with his or her parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and other relatives (Article 55). 51.     Protection of the rights and interests of children in the event of, inter alia , the death of their parents, the long absence of their parents, or their parents’ failure to bring up their children or protect their rights and interests, is entrusted to the custody and guardianship authorities. Those authorities shall identify children left without parental care and, proceeding on the basis of the specific circumstances of the loss of parental care, select suitable accommodation for them and also exercise control over their living conditions, upbringing and education (Article 121 § 1). Legal provisions concerning the establishment of paternity 52 .     The paternity of a person who is not married to a child’s mother shall be established on the basis of a joint declaration filed by the father and mother of the child. In the event of, inter alia , the mother’s death, the paternity of such a person shall be established on the basis of a declaration by the child’s father, with the consent of the custody and guardianship authorities; in the absence of such consent, it shall be established by a court decision (Article 48   §   3). 53 .     If a child is born to parents who are not married to each other and there is no joint declaration or declaration by the child’s father, paternity of the child shall be established in court proceedings upon the application of either parent. In such proceedings, the court shall have regard to any evidence that establishes the child’s paternity with certainty (Article 49). Legal provisions concerning parents’ rights and obligations 54 .     The right of parents to bring up their children has precedence over any other person’s right to do so (Article 63   §   1). 55 .     Parents have the right to seek the return of their child from any person who retains the child not in accordance with the law or a court decision. In the event of a dispute, the parents are entitled to lodge a court claim for the protection of their rights. When examining that claim, the court, with due regard to the child’s opinion, is entitled to reject the claim if it finds that the child’s transfer to the parents would be contrary to the child’s interests (Article 68   §   1). Legal provisions governing foster care and adoption 56 .     Siblings shall not be transferred into the guardianship (foster care) of different persons, except in situations where such placement corresponds to the children’s interests (Article 145   §   5). 57 .     Adoption is the preferred option for the placement of children left without parental care. Adoption is allowed in respect of minors only if it is in the best interests of the child, taking into account the possibilities to secure the child’s full physical, mental, spiritual and moral development (Article 124   §§ 1 and 2). The adoption of siblings by different persons is not allowed, except in situations where such adoption corresponds to the children’s interests (Article 124   § 3). 58 .     An adoption order in respect of a child may be revoked if the adopters fail to respect the parental duties imposed upon them, abuse their parental rights, treat the adopted child cruelly, or suffer from chronic alcoholism or drug addiction. An adoption order in respect of a child may also be revoked by a court on other grounds, proceeding on the basis of the child’s interests and taking into account his or her opinion (Article 141). Ruling of the Supreme Court of Russia 59 .     On 20 April 2006 the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia adopted ruling no.   8 on its application of legislation during the examination of cases concerning the adoption of children. It stated, in so far as relevant: “19. Since adoptive parents acquire their parental rights and obligations as a result of adoption, and not because of the birth of their children, it should be borne in mind that in cases of evasion of parental duties by the adoptive parents, the abuse of parental rights or cruel treatment of the adopted children, as well as if the adoptive parents are chronically sick alcoholics or drug addicts, a court can decide to revoke the adoption (Article 140, Article 141   §   1 of the Family Code of Russia), or not to deprive or limit the parental rights (Articles 69, 70 and 73 of the Family Code). In such cases, the child’s consent to the revocation of the adoption is not necessary (Article 57 of the Family Code). On the basis of Article 141   §   2 of the Family Code, a court is also entitled to revoke an adoption order in the absence of guilty conduct on the part of adoptive parents if, owing to circumstances within or beyond the adoptive parents’ control, no relations necessary for the child’s adequate rearing and upbringing have been established [within the adoptive family]. Such circumstances may include, in particular: a lack of mutual understanding, owing to the personal qualities of the adoptive parent and (or) the adopted child, with the result that the adoptive parent has no authority in the eyes of the adopted child or the adopted child does not feel that [he or she] is a member of the adoptive parent’s family; or the discovery after the adoption that the adopted child has an intellectual deficiency or hereditary health deficiencies which significantly complicate [his or her] upbringing or render [that upbringing] impossible, and of which the adoptive parent was not informed at the moment of adoption. In such cases, a court may revoke the adoption order, bearing in mind the interests of the child, and with due regard to the opinion of the child if he or she has reached the age of ten (Article 57 and Article 141   §   2 of the Family Code). When an adoption order is revoked for reasons other than guilty conduct by the adoptive parents, that fact should be reflected in the court’s decision.”     The Code of Civil Procedure 60 .     On 9 December 2010 the relevant parts of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the review of judgments delivered by courts of first instance were amended by Federal Law no. 353-FZ, with effect from 1   January 2012. 61.     In Part III of the Code (“Procedure for review at second instance”), a new Chapter 39 was inserted, introducing a new appeal procedure in respect of judgments by courts of first instance that had not become binding (“had not acquired binding force” – не вступившие в законную силу ). The newly enacted appeal procedure ( процедура апелляционного обжалования ) in respect of such judgments replaced the former cassation appeal procedure ( процедура кассационного обжалования ) which was governed by Chapter 40 of the Code until 1 January 2012. While modifying various features of the review at second instance, including its scope and consequences, the new appeal procedure maintained the principle whereby decisions taken by second-instance courts on appeal acquired binding force immediately (new Article 329   §   5), as the decisions taken by the same courts on cassation appeals had done previously (former Article 367). 62.     Part IV of the Code governs the procedure for the review of judgments that have become binding. The former Chapter   41 (“Supervisory review procedure”) has been split into two new chapters: Chapter 41 (“Cassation review procedure”) and Chapter   41.1 (“Supervisory review procedure”). 63.     Judgments delivered by courts of general jurisdiction may be challenged in cassation appeal proceedings within six months of the date on which they become legally binding. Cassation review proceedings may be initiated by the parties to a case and other persons whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by those decisions, but only if other available avenues of appeal have been exhausted before the decisions become legally binding (Article 376). 64.     The presidia of the regional courts conduct a review in cassation of judgments and decisions delivered by the lower courts and the regional courts themselves where they have acted as appellate courts (Article 377 §   2   (1)). In addition, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation conducts cassation reviews of judgments and decisions, including those taken by the presidia of the regional courts (Article 377 §   2   (3)). 65.     Cassation appeals to the regional courts are considered by the president or deputy president of the relevant court, or by a judge delegated for this purpose (Article 380.1 § 1). Cassation appeals to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are considered by a judge of that court (Article   380.1 §   2). A decision by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissing a cassation appeal may be overruled by a president or deputy president of that court (Article 381 § 3). 66.     The grounds for quashing or varying binding judgments by the presidia of the regional courts and the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, where they have acted as cassation courts, are “significant violations of substantive or procedural law which influenced the outcome of the proceedings and must be corrected in order to restore and protect rights, freedoms and lawful interests and safeguard public interests protected by law” (Article   387). THE LAW     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 67.     The applicant complained that the adoption of his daughter D. without his knowledge, and the subsequent refusal by the domestic courts to recognise his paternity in respect of D. and revoke the adoption order in respect of her, had violated his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life... 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Admissibility Compliance with the six-month rule 68.     The Court reiterates at the outset that, pursuant to Article   35   §   1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the final decision in the process of exhaustion (see Hazar and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), nos. 62566/00 et seq., 10 January 2002). It is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because an objection based on that rule has not been made, since the said criterion, reflecting as it does the wish of the Contracting Parties to prevent past events being called into question after an indefinite lapse of time, serves the interests not only of respondent Governments, but also of legal certainty as a value in itself. It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention, and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v.   the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I). 69 .     In the present case, the applicant’s claim for recognition of his paternity and revocation of the adoption order in respect of D. was examined and dismissed on 1   October 2012 at the first level of jurisdiction (see paragraphs 36-43 above), and the first-instance decision was upheld on 13   November 2012 at the second level of jurisdiction (see paragraphs 46-47 above), and then upheld again on 7   April and 25 June 2013 respectively at the third and fourth levels of jurisdiction (see paragraph 48 above). The application was lodged on 9 October 2013. 70.     In the context of Russia, the Court has held that before the reform of the Russian civil procedure system which took effect from 1 January 2012 (see paragraph 60 above), the ultimate judicial remedy to be exhausted prior to lodging an application with the Court was an appeal to an appellate court – a court at the second level of jurisdiction – and that applicants were thus not required to submit their cases for examination by higher courts, a review which at that time constituted an extraordinary remedy. The Court therefore considered the decisions given by courts at the second level of jurisdiction to be final decisions in the process of exhaustion for the purpose of calculating the six-month period as established in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Martynets v.   Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009). 71.     Eventually, in the case of Abramyan and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos.   38951/13 and 59611/13, §§   76-96, 12 May 2015) the Court held that, following the legislative amendments which had taken effect on 1 January 2012, Russian civil procedure was no longer fraught with the previously existing uncertainty, and any individual who intended to lodge an application in respect of a violation of his or her Convention rights should firstly use the remedies offered by the new two-tier cassation procedure, including an appeal to a regional court (the third level of jurisdiction) and the Supreme Court of Russia (the fourth level of jurisdiction). 72 .     At the same time, the Court has consistently dismissed objections by the Government regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by applicants who had not availed themselves of the new cassation procedure, where they had lodged their applications before the Court had pronounced its decision in the case of Abramyan and Others ((dec.), cited above; see, for example, Novruk and Others v. Russia , nos.   31039/11 and 4 others, §§   70 ‑ 76, 15 March 2016; Kocherov and Sergeyeva v. Russia , no. 16899/13, §§   64-69, 29 March 2016; McIlwrath v. Russia , no. 60393/13, §§   85-95, 18   July 2017; Elita   Magomadova v. Russia , no. 77546/14, §§   40 ‑ 44, 10   April 2018; Khusnutdinov and X v. Russia , no. 76598/12, §§ 65-66, 18   December 2018; and Zelikha Magomadova v. Russia , no. 58724/14, §§   79-80, 8   October 2019). It held, in particular, that in cases where the effectiveness of a given remedy was recognised in the Court’s case-law after the lodging of an application, it would be disproportionate to require applicants to turn to that remedy for redress a long time after they had lodged their applications with the Court, especially after the time-limit for using that remedy had expired (see, for instance, Kocherov and Sergeyeva , cited above, §   67). 73.     In the present case, however, the applicant availed himself of the above-mentioned new remedy and lodged the present application on 9   October 2013, that is more than six months after the decision taken in the proceedings for recognition of paternity and revocation of the adoption order by a court at the second level of jurisdiction, but within six months of the date of the last decision taken by a higher court (see paragraph 69 above). The Court must therefore determine whether the applicant complied with the six-month rule by having recourse to a newly introduced remedy before the Court recognised its effectiveness. 74.     In that connection, the Government observed that a new two-tier cassation appeal procedure had been in place for appealing against court decisions taken at the first two levels of jurisdiction, of which the applicant had availed himself. They submitted that it was thus the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 25 June 2013 (see paragraph 48 above) that should be regarded as the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the present case. The parties agreed that the applicant had complied with the six-month time-limit established in Article 35   §   1 of the Convention. 75.     The Court observes that in the case of Abramyan and Others ((dec.), cited above) it examined the legislative amendments reforming Russian civil procedure with effect from 1 January 2012, and found that the newly introduced cassation procedure no longer constituted an extraordinary means of reopening judicial proceedings in a case, but was instead an ordinary appeal on points of law similar to that existing in the jurisdictions of other States parties to the Convention (ibid., §   93). In such circumstances, given the significant changes in Russian civil procedure during the relevant period, it was not unreasonable for the applicant to assume that the remedy in question was effective and use it in order to give the domestic courts an opportunity to put matters right through the national legal system, thereby respecting the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights. Although the applicant was not required to use that remedy before the Court recognised its effectiveness (see paragraph 72 above), he cannot be reproached for his attempt to bring his grievances to the attention of the domestic authorities through the remedy which he considered effective (for a similar approach, see Zubkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2   others, §§   106-107, 7   November 2017). 76.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court accepts the parties’ argument that the final decision in the process of exhaustion given in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for recognition of his paternity and revocation of the adoption order was the decision of 25 June 2013. Accordingly, it finds that the applicant complied with the six-month rule in the present case. Applicability of Article 8 of the Convention 77.     The Government acknowledged that the applicant was D.’s biological father. However, with reference to a report from a childcare authority (a copy of which was not submitted to the Court), they argued that from the moment of D.’s birth the applicant had often been absent from home for prolonged periods, and that owing to that fact and D.’s very young age, no child-parent ties had formed between him and D. 78.     The applicant disputed the Government’s argument about the lack of personal ties between him and his daughter. He also submitted that the allegations regarding his prolonged absences were purely speculative and untrue. He pointed out that he had lived with D. for the whole first year of her life before she had been taken into care, and insisted that he had never abandoned her or consented to her being placed with a foster family. The applicant argued that the authorities’ actions in respect of D. had violated his right to respect for his private and family life. 79.     The Court reiterates that the notion of “family life” under Article   8 of the Convention is not confined to marriage-based relationships, and may encompass other de facto “family” ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that “family” unit from the moment, and by the very fact, of its birth. Thus, there exists between the child and the parents a relationship amounting to family life (see Keegan v. Ireland , 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII; and L.   v.   the Netherlands , no. 45582/99, § 35, ECHR 2004 ‑ IV). 80.     In the present case, the applicant cohabited with Ms   O.M. for an uninterrupted period from 1994 until her death on 4 February 2011, that is for approximately seventeen years. Five children, including D., were born as a result of that relationship. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the biological father of all the children, including D. It is also clear that the applicant, his partner and their children lived together, and that the applicant took care of and supported the children (see paragraph 34 above). In particular, he collected Ms   O.M. and D. from the maternity hospital and was involved in D’s upbringing for the first year of her life. The Court finds the Government’s argument regarding the applicant’s prolonged absences from the family unconvincing, as it was not corroborated by any documentary evidence; nor did the courts make any findings in that regard in the domestic proceedings. 81 .     The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that from the moment of D.’s birth there was a bond between the applicant and his daughter which amounted to “family life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Conventi