CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mars 2022

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 30 March 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 40866/21 F.K. and S.K. against Russia lodged on 9 August 2021 communicated on 11 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are mother and son (“the first applicant” and “the second applicant” respectively) from the North Caucasus Region of the Russian Federation. In 2010 the first applicant entered in a religious marriage with Mr   I.T. They separated the same year. Shortly after their separation the second applicant was born in 2011. His birth certificate does not mention I.T. as his father, the relevant field in the certificate is blank. I.T. never sought to establish his paternity in respect of the child. In 2020 I.T. abducted the child. The first applicant sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against him, in vain. She challenged the lawfulness of this decision before the court, also in vain. While the proceedings were pending, she managed to return the boy on two occasions. After the first return of the child she was threatened by the police and the commission for the affairs of minors and had to give the child back to I.T. After the second return, she left Grozny fearing that her son would be again abducted. The first applicant complained, on behalf of herself and the second applicant, under Article 8 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic authorities to secure their right to respect for their family life. She further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a failure by the State to comply with its positive obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?