THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KLYMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 50769/20 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 September 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Klymenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 August 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from disputes related to childcare. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes, with regard to application no. 50769/20, where domestic decisions were rendered by courts in Crimea, that the Russian Federation has exercised jurisdiction over Crimea at least since 18 March 2014 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 338-349, 16 December 2020 and Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 873, 25 June 2024). Accordingly, the events this applicant complained of fall within the “jurisdiction” of the respondent Government and the Court has competence to examine them.
7. The Court further observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention in all applications in the present case occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention8. The applicants complained principally of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from disputes related to childcare. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.
9. The Court reiterates that the applicants complained about determination and/or enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights and international child abduction. In the leading cases referred to in the appended table under the column “Subject matter of the case and the leading case-law reference”, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic authorities failed to take, without delay, all the measures that could reasonably have been expected of them to assist the applicants in being reunited with their children, and/or to fairly balance the interests of all parties involved in the proceedings – both parents and the child (children) – in a decision-making process which provided the applicants with the requisite protection of their interests safeguarded by Article 8 and allowed the best interests of the children to be established, and/or to give sufficient reasons commensurate with the seriousness of the interests at stake to justify their interference for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. In application no. 23855/22 the first applicant submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, §§ 90-119, 23 November 2021.
remaining complaint14. In application no. 23752/22 the first applicant raised a further complaint under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. In view of its findings in paragraphs 10-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with this remaining complaint.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (referred to in the appended table), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. As regards the applicants‑children (second applicants in applications nos. 51521/21, 23752/22 and 23855/22), it considers that the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage they have suffered as a result of the violation of their Article 8 rights.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that the Court has jurisdiction to examine the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life stemming from disputes related to childcare, as well as another complaint under the well-established case-law of the Court raised in application no. 23855/22 (see appended table), admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaint raised in application no. 23752/22;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court in application no. 23855/22 (see appended table);Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the second applicants in applications nos. 51521/21, 23752/22 and 23855/22; Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
(interference with the right to respect for family life stemming from disputes related to childcare)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Subject matter of the case and the leading case-law reference
Specific defects
Summary of the factual circumstances
Final domestic decision
Court name
Date
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
50769/20
05/11/2020
Natalya Oleksandrivna KLYMENKO
1972
Zayets Sergiy Anatoliyovych
Irpin
Non-enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights –
Pakhomova v. Russia, no. 22935/11, 24 October 2013;
Muruzheva v. Russia, no. 62526/15, 15 May 2018;
Gubasheva and Ferzauli v. Russia, no. 38433/17, 5 May 2020;
A.B.V. v. Russia, no. 56987/15, 2 October 2018;
Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, § 116, 23 November 2021
(protracted non-enforcement of the initial court residence order ultimately leading to a judgment which, without taking into account the fact of kidnapping of a child or refusal to comply with the initial residence order by another parent/relative, retroactively approved the latter’s refusal to return the child)
The applicant is the mother of a child born on 12/11/2012. On 05/04/2017 she and the child’s father stopped living together. On 24/06/2017 the father took the child and refused to return him to the applicant. On 21/11/2017 the Leninskiy District Court of Sevastopol determined the child’s residence as being with the applicant. The judgment became final on 12/03/2018. On 05/10/2018 the Bailiffs Service instituted the enforcement proceedings, which yielded no result. On 01/08/2019 the Leninskiy District Court found the bailiffs’ inactivity unlawful. In the meantime, the child’s father applied for a residence order in his favour. By the final judgment of 16/04/2020 of the Supreme Court (second cassation instance) his claim was granted. The applicant received a copy of the above decision on 06/05/2020. On 20/01/2020 at the request of the Bailiffs Service the Leninskiy District Court terminated the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 21/11/2017. On 28/05/2020 the Sevastopol City Court upheld this decision on appeal.
Sevastopol City Court
28/05/2020
12,500
51521/21
06/10/2021
Patrick Michael RYAN
1969
Michael Evgeniy RYAN
2018
Ibragimov Erkin Sanokulovich
St Petersburg
International Child Abduction –
Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019;
Thompson v. Russia, no. 36048/17, 30 March 2021
(Failure of domestic courts to comply with positive obligations to secure respect for family life through inadequate interpretation and application of Hague Convention, leading to dismissal of the father’s request to return his son after wrongful and arbitrary removal from the UK)
The first applicant (a British national) and his wife (a Russian national) got married in 2017 in Russia. In March 2018 they moved to the UK. On 14/06/2018 the first applicant’s wife gave birth to the second applicant (a British national by birth; acquired Russian nationality in December 2018). On 18/01/2019 the first applicant’s wife took the second applicant to Russia to visit her family with the first applicant’s consent. She informed the first applicant that she would get back in 3 weeks (she had bought round trip tickets). When she arrived in Russia, she informed the first applicant that she would not be returning. On 11/11/2019 the first applicant lodged an application with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg seeking the second applicant’s return to the UK under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which both Russia and the UK are parties. On 18/03/2020 his application was rejected with the following reasoning. It was not proven that the UK had been the second applicant’s habitual place of residence; the child has been residing in Russia for 9 months before the return application was lodged; in view of his young age he was deeply attached to his mother, who created all the necessary conditions for his development and upbringing in Russia; the child adapted to his new environment; his return to the UK would not be in his best interests as it would entail separation from his mother who had no intention to return to the UK.
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
06/04/2021
12,500 to the first applicant;
the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
4151/22
21/12/2021
Oleg Vyacheslavovich NELYUBOV
1978
Determination of child residence/contact rights –
Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021;
Nechay v. Russia, no. 40639/17, 25 May 2021;
Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, 23 October 2018
(Failure of the domestic authorities to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision to make a residence order in favour of the child’s mother)
In 2010 the applicant married Ms M.N. Their daughter Z. was born on 07/03/2016. In February 2019 the relationship between the applicant and M.N. deteriorated and, upon their mutual agreement, in September 2019, the applicant and Z. moved out. In October 2019 M.N. instituted divorce proceedings before the Pushkinskiy District Court of St Petersburg and asked for a residence order in respect of Z. Pending the proceedings Z. remained living with the applicant, M.N. visited Z. on five occasions. The psychological expert examination of Z. (04/11/2019) and forensic psychological expert examination of the applicant, M.N. and the child (17/03/2020) showed that Z. had a strong emotional bond with the applicant (“secure attachment style, mutual sympathy, trust, support and closeness”) and absence of such contact with M.N. («conflictual/ambivalent attitude depending on the frequency, conditions, regularity of contacts, M.N.’s attitude), Z. wished to live with her father. The opinion by the local administration was favourable to M.N., with reference, in particular, to Principle 6 of the UN 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which provided that a child of tender years should not, save if exceptional circumstances, be separated from his or her mother. On 09/06/2020 M.N.’s claim was granted. On 17/09/2020 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
30/06/2021
12,500
23752/22
28/04/2022
Sebastien Raoul Joseph COMBACAL
1976
Gabriel Raoul Vitaliy COMBACAL
2017
Makarova Marina Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Moskalenko
Karinna
Akopovna
Strasbourg
Zakharina
Marina Mikhaylovna
Strasbourg
International Child Abduction –
Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019;
Thompson v. Russia, no. 36048/17, 30 March 2021
(Failure of domestic courts to comply with positive obligations to secure respect for family life through inadequate interpretation and application of Hague Convention, leading to refusal of the father’s request to return his son after wrongful and arbitrary removal from France)
Application lodged by the father ("the first applicant") on his own behalf and on behalf of his abducted son ("the second applicant").
The first applicant is a French national. In 2016 he married Ms N.M., a Russian national. The couple settled in France. On 15/01/2017 their son was born. He has French and Russian (since 06/06/2018) nationality. In August 2018 the family went to Russia to visit maternal relatives. On 18/08/2018 they were supposed to return to France. However, on the way to the airport N.M., having taken the son and his documents, fled. The applicant reported this to the police on the same day. On 04/12/2018 criminal proceedings were instituted into the disappearance of N.M. and the second applicant. On 23/09/2020 their whereabouts were established in the Smolensk Region, and on 14/10/2020 the criminal proceedings were discontinued. The investigation found out that before coming to Russia N.M. had become influenced by the ideas of a pseudo-Orthodox group, that for over two years she and the child had been living in various villages of the region in poor conditions, that the child had been deprived of medical care and education. Meanwhile, on 20/09/18 the first applicant lodged an application with the Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod seeking the second applicant’s return to France under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which both Russia and France are parties. On 18/07/2019 his application was rejected, as "it could not be excluded that N.M. and the child had been abducted and unlawfully retained in Russia by a third party", in which case the Hague Convention did not apply. On 09/10/2019 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. However, on 04/02/2020 the First Cassation Court quashed this decision, establishing that France had been the second applicant’s place of habitual residence and that the first applicant had provided evidence of the second applicant’s unlawful retention in Russia, and remitted the case for a new appeal hearing. On 18/06/2020 the Regional Court granted the first applicant’s claim. However, on 17/11/2020 the First Cassation Court, following the appeal from the prosecutor’s office, quashed the appeal decision on the ground that it was taken in the absence of a written report by the childcare authorities and remitted the case for a new examination by the appeal court. On 04/03/2021 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 17/11/2020. On 30/03/2021 the Regional Court rejected the first applicant’s claim with the following reasoning. France was the child’s place of habitual residence and his retention in Russian by his mother was unlawful. However, the return to France would place the child in an intolerable situation (Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention): by that time the child had spent more time in Russia than in France, he did not speak French (and the applicant did not speak Russian) and was strongly attached to his mother who had no intention to return to France. Their separation could inflict psychological trauma on the child. The Regional Court furthermore relied on Principle 6 of the United Nations 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which provided that a child of tender years should not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his or her mother.
Supreme Court of Russia
16/12/2021
12,500 to the first applicant;
the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
23855/22
22/03/2022
Zhanetta Abdulazizovna TUKHAYEVA
1976
Abubakr Ruslanovich IBAYEV
2010
Non-enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights –
Pakhomova v. Russia, no. 22935/11, 24 October 2013;
Muruzheva v. Russia, no. 62526/15, 15 May 2018;
Gubasheva and Ferzauli v. Russia, no. 38433/17, 5 May 2020;
A.B.V. v. Russia, no. 56987/15, 2 October 2018;
Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021
(Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite the first applicant with her child, the second applicant, after the latter had been kidnapped by the father, against the background of regional gender stereotypes and patrilineal practices)
Application brought by the first applicant on behalf of herself and her minor son, the second applicant (born in 2010).
In 2009-2014 the first applicant lived in a religious marriage with Mr R. In 2010 and 2012 she gave birth to two sons. In April 2014 the marriage broke up. R. kidnapped both children, but later returned the younger boy to the applicant. On 12/12/2016 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow determined the children’s place of residence as being with the first applicant (upheld on appeal on 12/04/2017). On 06/04/2018 the enforcement proceedings were instituted. In February 2019 R.’s whereabouts were found in Georgia. On 02/05/2019 the Supreme Court of Georgia approved a friendly settlement between the first applicant and R. regarding the second applicant’s return, however in August 2019 R. removed the second applicant from Georgia to the Chechen Republic. On 31/10/2019 he applied to the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny for a residence order in respect of both children, without success. On 04/09/2020 he filed identical claim. On 10/02/2021 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic took an interim decision determining the second applicant’s residence as being with his father pending those proceedings (upheld in cassation-review procedure on 08/06/2021 and 22/09/2021). On 19/01/2022 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala discontinued those proceedings. On 25/01/2022 R. for the third time applied for determination of the children’s place of residence as being with him. The proceedings were still pending before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny when the application was brought before the Court. Meanwhile, in December 2020 the Prosecutor’s Office in Grozny issued a formal warning to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Leninskiy District of Grozny for failure to enforce the judgment of 12/12/2016 in the first applicant’s favour and ordered to take disciplinary measures in respect of the bailiff in charge of the enforcement proceedings. On 25/02/2021 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. They were resumed on 02/09/2021 and suspended on several occasions between 24/09/2021 and 01/02/2022 in view of the application of interim measure in favour of R. On an unspecified date in 2022 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic issued a formal warning to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Chechen Republic in view of their failure to enforce the judgment of 12/12/2016. The judgment in question remains unenforced.
Art. 14 - Prohibition of discrimination - in conjunction with Article 8 – discrimination on grounds of sex: gender stereotypes and patrilineal practices prevailing in the North Caucasus Region of Russia
16,250 to the first applicant;
the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.