THIRD SECTION
CASE OF RYASNOVA AND X v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 11200/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ryasnova and X v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 March 2018.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
3. The second applicant was granted anonymity (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court).
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from a dispute related to childcare (establishment of paternity). The applicants also raised a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention 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 application (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 Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from a dispute related to childcare (establishment of paternity). They relied on Article 8 of the Convention.
8. In the leading case 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 an issue similar to the one in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as having considered the Government’s objection to the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, including that which defines the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see Kalacheva v. Russia, no. 3451/05, § 29, 7 May 2009, Çapın v. Turkey, no. 44690/09, § 33, 15 October 2019, Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003‑III, Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002‑I, and Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006‑X), the Court considers that in the instant case, in the absence of any objective impossibility to obtain factually clear and procedurally reliable scientific evidence, the domestic courts acted in a manner which prevented the applicants from receiving an unambiguous answer to the question of the identity of the second applicant’s father. In such circumstances the Court considers that the domestic authorities’ approach in handling the applicants’ case fell short of the State’s positive obligation to strike a fair balance between competing interests of the parties to the proceedings with due regard, in particular, to the best interests of the child.
10. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINT11. The applicants also raised a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
12. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
(interference with the right to respect for family life stemming from disputes related to childcare)
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
Summary of the factual circumstances
Final domestic decision
Court name
Date
Amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros)[1]
11200/18
02/03/2018
Lada Yuryevna RYASNOVA (name subsequently changed to Lada DOMS)
1983
X
2010
Y. Georgiades
Nicosia, Cyprus
Establishment of paternity –
Kalacheva v. Russia, no. 3451/05, 7 May 2009
The applicants are mother and daughter. They claim that the first applicant was in a relationship with M., a very rich businessman, and that M. is the second applicant’s biological father. On 04/09/2014 the first applicant, acting on behalf of the second applicant, lodged a judicial claim to establish M.’s paternity of the second applicant shortly after M. had been murdered.
The court ordered a DNA test on the basis of M.’s blood sample taken in the framework of the criminal investigation into his murder. The DNA confirmed that M. was the second applicant’s biological father. However, the test in question was declared inadmissible evidence for formal procedural reasons.
Another DNA test was ordered by a different expert institution, which, having no access to M.’s DNA profile, could only carry out a comparative DNA test between the second applicant and M.’s legitimate son N. The test showed that the second applicant and N. were either half-siblings or cousins. The court rejected the experts’ request to use the first applicant’s and M.’s widow’s blood samples to determine the exact degree of kinship between the second applicant and N. It also refused to obtain M.’s DNA profile from the Investigative Committee once it became available and found that the applicants had not proved M.’s paternity of the second applicant.
Supreme Court, 10/10/2017
7,500,
jointly to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
6,500,
jointly to the applicants in respect of costs and expenses
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.