CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt }   Published on 19 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16855/18 Anastasiya Nikolayevna FEDOROVA against Russia lodged on 21 March 2018 communicated on 30 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a child residence dispute. A domestic court issued an interim residence order under which the applicant’s daughter was to live with her pending the main residence order proceedings. The interim order was quashed on appeal and a new interim order was issued under which the applicant’s daughter was to live with her father pending the main residence order proceedings. The appeal court did not hold an oral hearing. The applicant was not served with a copy of the father’s appeal submissions or given an opportunity to make submissions in reply. She was eventually granted a residence order in her favour in the main proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there exceptional circumstances that justified dispensing with an oral hearing on appeal against the interim residence order (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal , nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 188-91 , 21 June 2016; see also, on appeal hearings, Helmers v. Sweden , 29 October 1991, §§   36-39, Series A no. 212 ‑ A, and on interim measures, Helmut Blum v.   Austria , no. 33060/10, §§ 70-74, 5 April 2016)? Did the failure to serve the opposing party’s appeal submissions against the interim residence order breach the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms (see Gryaznov v. Russia , no. 19673/03, §§ 52-54, 12 June 2012, with further references)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, given that the appeal court did not hold an oral hearing and that the applicant was not served with the opposing party’s appeal submissions and was not given an opportunity to make submissions either orally or in writing on the issue of interim residence order, was she involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide her with the requisite protection of her interests (see Jucius and Juciuvienė v. Lithuania , no. 14414/03, § 31, 25   November 2008, and R.S. v. Poland , no. 63777/09, § 68, 21 July 2015)?