CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 16855/18 Anastasiya Nikolayevna FEDOROVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16   January 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21   March 2018, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Anastasiya Nikolayevna Fedorova, was born in 1983. She was represented by Mr S. Minenkov, a lawyer practicing in the Leningrad Region. The applicant’s complaints concerning the interference with her right to respect for her family life stemming from an interim decision in child ‑ residence proceedings and the failure to hold an oral hearing while issuing the interim decision in question were communicated to the Russian Government under Articles   8 and 6 § 1 of the Convention. The parties submitted their observations. THE LAW The Court observes that the impugned interim decision in favour of the child’ father has never been enforced and that the child continued living with the applicant pending the child-residence proceedings. Subsequently, merely months after the interim decision the child-residence proceedings ended in favour of the applicant. The material facts giving rise to the present application have therefore ceased to exist and the applicant has been able to enjoy her family life with her child. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (b) of the Convention, considers that the matter has been resolved (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France (dec.) [GC], no.   76642/01, §   32, ECHR 2006‑XIV). It is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 February 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President