CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 26 May 2015 and 8 March 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 70135/14 Aleksey Nikolayevich MALININ against Russia lodged on 7 October 2014 The main facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. The present Statement of facts and Questions describes new developments that took place thereafter. STATEMENT OF FACTS   On 4   December 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised, against the applicant’s will, his children’s trip abroad for the winter holidays. On 15 December 2014 the children left for Germany with their mother. They returned to Russia on 9   January 2015. The decision of 4   December 2014 was later quashed on appeal because it had been made by a court that had no territorial jurisdiction over the case.   On 6 May 2015 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised, against the applicant’s will, the children’s trip abroad for the period from 1 June to 31 August 2015. The court noted that the children had received an accommodation certificate from the sister of their mother’s new partner who permanently lived in Germany. It noted that the children could not be deprived of holidays abroad simply because their father had refused to give a travel authorisation. In reply to the applicant’s arguments that the children’s absence for three months would deprive him of a possibility to maintain contact with them and that there was a risk that they would not return from Germany, the court held that there was no evidence that the children’s trip to Germany would be contrary to their best interests.   In the beginning of July 2015 the children left for Germany with their mother. In July 2015 the mother married her partner and in September 2015 gave birth to their common child.   The children are now living in Germany with their mother and her new husband.   The applicant’s numerous requests to various Russia authorities for assistance in recovering his children remained unanswered. In December 2015 the applicant lodged a court application, complaining of the authorities’ inaction. The proceedings are pending.   On 2 December 2015 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 6   May 2015 on appeal.   QUESTION Did the judicial decision of 6 May 2015 violate the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts assess what impact would the children’s stay abroad have on their relationship with the applicant, and in particular how the applicant’s contact rights would be affected by the children’s long absence. Given that the mother’s new partner was permanently living in Germany and that they were expecting a child together, was there a foreseeable risk that the children would not return from Germany?