CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 August 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17142/18 Vitaliy Vladimirovich ABALYMOV against Russia lodged on 27 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the granting of a residence order in respect of the applicant’s younger children to the mother.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the refusal to grant to the applicant a residence order in respect of his younger children violate his right to respect for his family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? Did the appellate court give sufficient reasons for reversing the residence order in favour of the applicant made by the Sovetskiy District Court of Samara? Did the appellate court, when taking such a decision, conduct an in ‑ depth examination of the entire family situation and a whole series of relevant factors, in particular factors of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature, and did it make a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with a constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for the children (see Neulinger and Shuruk v.   Switzerland   [GC], no. 41615/07, § 139, ECHR 2010, and Antonyuk v.   Russia , no.   47721/10, §   134, 1 August 2013)? In particular, did the domestic courts take into account the following factors: (i) the potential impact on the children of a separation from their elder sister who lived with the applicant and who, according to the experts, was the most emotionally significant person in their lives; (ii) the fact that after the separation the children have lived with the applicant; and (iii) the fact that the mother’s work required her to travel a lot and to leave the children with baby-sitters during her long absences?   2.     Did the decision to grant a residence order to the children’s mother rather than to the applicant on the sole ground that “there were no exceptional circumstances justifying [the young children]’s separation from their mother”, and irrespective of the parents’ individual circumstances and character, amount to discrimination against the applicant on grounds of sex, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?   3.     Did the decision to grant a residence order to the mother rather than to the applicant violate the principle of equality of spouses guaranteed by Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention?