CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5C144E8F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 30 October 2019   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 38882/18 and 50200/19 Maryna Mychajlivna ZHUPAN against Ukraine lodged on 10 August 2018 and 19 September 2019 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Maryna Mychaylivna Zhupan, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Chynice, the Czech Republic. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Hájek, a lawyer practising in Prague. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2010 the applicant married V. On 13 May 2011 their son I. was born. On 27 October 2014 the Khust District Court of Zakarpattya Region (the first-instance court) dissolved the marriage. As regards the child residence, the court ruled that the child should live with the applicant. In August 2015 the applicant’s parents informed V. that the applicant had moved away from Ukraine and lived in the Czech Republic. They asked V.   to take the child because they could not support him. Since September   2015 the child started to live with V. The transfer was attested by a notary. Following these events, V. initiated civil proceedings against the applicant seeking to change the child’s place of residence to his home. At the same time, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against V., claiming that the child should be returned to her. On 3 November 2015 the first-instance court decided that the child should be transferred to the applicant at her Ukrainian address. The court ordered immediate enforcement. On 4 November 2015 the bailiffs found in the presence of the police and the officer of the local childcare authority that the child did not wish to go to the applicant. On 7 August 2017 the first-instance court allowed V.’s claim and ordered that the child should live with V., having regard to the child’s actual situation and his best interests. On 7 September 2018 the Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 18 April 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to enforce the court decision of 3   November   2015 ordering a transfer of the child to the applicant.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES With regard to the applicant’s allegations regarding non-enforcement of the court decision of 5 November 2015, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to provide copies of the reports and decisions (including decisions on suspension and termination of the enforcement proceedings) adopted by the bailiffs in relation to the enforcement of court order of 3 November 2015.