Communicated on 20 November 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 38433/17
Asya Baudiyevna GUBASHEVA and Ramina Renatovna FERZAULI
against Russia
lodged on 19 May 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Ms Asya Baudiyevna Gubasheva (“the first applicant”) and Ms Ramina Renatovna Ferzauli (“the second applicant”) are mother and daughter. They are Russian nationals who were born in 1989 and 2012 respectively and live in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia respectively. They are represented before the Court by Ms V. Kogan and Mr E. Wesselink, lawyers practising in Moscow and Utrecht.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 February 2012 the first applicant married R.F.
On 15 May 2012 the first applicant gave birth to their daughter, the second applicant.
In August 2012 the first applicant and R.F. separated. The second applicant continued to live with the first applicant.
In August 2014 R.F. kidnapped the child.
On 23 September 2014 the marriage between the first applicant and R.F. was officially dissolved.
On 28 November 2014 the first applicant applied to the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia (“the District Court”) for a residence order in respect of the second applicant. In response, R.F. instituted proceedings to determine the child’s residence as being with him.
On 9 February 2015 the District Court held that the child should reside with her mother, the first applicant. R.F.’s application for residence was dismissed. The judgment became final on 9 June 2015.
On 5 August 2015 bailiff Ye. from the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetia opened enforcement proceedings in this connection.
On 21 August 2015 R.F. explained to bailiff Ch. that he was residing in the Chechen Republic and asked that the enforcement proceedings be referred to the Bailiffs’ Service in Grozny.
On 24 August 2015 bailiff Ch. instructed the Bailiffs’ Service in Grozny to establish R.F.’s place of residence.
On 27 August 2015 the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
On 5 October 2015 bailiff K. of the Bailiffs’ Service in Grozny visited R.F.’s presumed place of residence in Grozny. It was established that R.F. was not living there and that the flat had been rented out since 2012.
On 9 October 2015 bailiff Ch. from the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service visited R.F.’s presumed place of residence in Ingushetia. The door was opened by R.F.’s mother, who explained that her son was living in Grozny.
On 7 December 2015 bailiff K. of the Bailiffs’ Service in Grozny obtained explanations from R.F., who again submitted that he was living in Grozny and was ready to come before a bailiff as soon as he was summoned.
On 9 December 2015 the enforcement proceedings in Ingushetia were suspended, and on 30 December 2015 it was decided to refer them to the Bailiffs’ Service in the Chechen Republic.
On 16 February 2016 the enforcement proceedings were referred to the Bailiffs’ Service in the Chechen Republic.
On 16 March 2016 bailiff T. of the Bailiffs’ Service in Grozny again visited R.F.’s presumed place of residence in Grozny and established that no one lived there.
On 11 April 2016 an administrative fine of 1,000 Russian roubles (EUR 15) was imposed on R.F. for failure to comply with the judgment of 9 February 2015.
On 21 April 2016 bailiff T. instituted a search for the second applicant.
On 3 June 2016 it was established that the second applicant was attending a kindergarten in Ingushetia.
On 22 June 2016 it was decided to return the enforcement proceedings to the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetia.
On 1 August 2016 the enforcement proceedings were returned to Ingushetia.
On 9 August 2016 bailiff A. visited R.F.’s presumed place of residence in Ingushetia. Nobody opened the door. The bailiff then visited R.F.’s workplace and spoke to him. The latter stated that he worked in Ingushetia and lived in Chechnya, and that he would not return the child to the first applicant.
On 5 October 2016 the enforcement proceedings were again returned to the Chechen Republic.
On 4 November 2016 the Bailiffs’ Service in Grozny refused to institute enforcement proceedings in respect of R.F.
On 13 December 2016 the enforcement file was sent back to the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetia.
In the meantime, on 12 October 2016 the first applicant challenged in court the lawfulness of the bailiffs’ actions.
On 22 November 2016 the District Court found unlawful the inaction of the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service and noted that the activities conducted by the bailiffs were manifestly insufficient as regards enforcement of the judgment of 9 February 2015, that the demands made by the bailiffs had been of a limited and formal nature, and that long periods of inactivity had been attributable to the bailiffs. The bailiffs were required to remedy the above violations.
On 23 December 2016 the enforcement proceedings were referred to the Grozny Bailiffs’ Service in the Chechen Republic for the third time.
On 31 January 2017 the enforcement material was received by the Grozny Bailiffs’ Service.
However, on 27 February 2017 the enforcement proceedings were again referred to the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetia.
The judgment of 9 February 2015 remains unenforced to date.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 9 February 2015 granting the first applicant a residence order in respect of the second applicant.
They further complain under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy against the alleged violation under Article 8.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
2. More specifically, 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 guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Has the judgment of the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia of 9 February 2015 granting to the first applicant the residence order in respect of the second applicant been enforced?
(b) Have the domestic authorities taken, without undue delay, all the measures that they could reasonably have been expected to take to enforce the judgment of 9 February 2015?
3. 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?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy