Communicated on 25 April 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 62526/15
Leyla Khamarzovna MURUZHEVA
against Russia
lodged on 11 December 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Leyla Khamarzovna Muruzheva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow. She is 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 applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In May 2008 the applicant married R.M. The couple settled in Moscow.
On 23 July 2008 and 31 May 2012 the applicant gave birth to two children.
In January 2014 she and R.M. decided to separate.
On 14 January 2014 R.M. took the children to the Republic of Ingushetiya without the applicant knowing. He left them with his parents (the paternal grandparents) and went back to Moscow.
On 4 March 2014 the marriage between the applicant and R.M. was officially dissolved.
On 11 March 2014 the applicant applied to the Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) for a residence order in respect of the children. She also applied for child maintenance from R.M.
On 25 June 2014 the District Court decided that the children should reside with their mother, the applicant. It further ordered R.M. to return the children to her and pay child maintenance. The judgment became final on 14 October 2014.
On 24 November 2014 bailiffs from the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in Moscow opened enforcement proceedings in this connection.
On 2 February 2015 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetiya.
On 12 February 2015 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of that transfer in the District Court.
On 8 April 2015 it found the decision of 2 February 2015 unlawful.
Meanwhile, on 23 March, 2 April and 16 April 2015 a bailiff from the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service tried to have the judgment of 25 June 2014 enforced, without success.
On 24 April 2015 the applicant challenged in court the lawfulness of the bailiffs’ actions during the attempt to return the children to her on 16 April 2015, in particular: involvement of the wrong district childcare authority in the enforcement, refusal of a request by her to have the enforcement filmed, refusal to examine an objection by her concerning a psychologist participating in the enforcement, untimely notification of the enforcement, establishment during the enforcement of the applicant’s son’s preferences as to his future residence, as well as the bailiffs’ inaction resulting in the failure to secure enforcement of the judgment of 25 June 2014.
On 11 June 2015 the Magasskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya allowed the applicant’s claim.
On 17 September 2015 the enforcement material was returned to the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in Moscow.
On 11 November 2015 it assigned the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetiya the task of ensuring the children were returned to the applicant.
The judgment of 25 June 2014 remains unenforced to date.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 25 June 2014 granting her a residence order in respect of her children.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her 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 applicant’s right to respect for her family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Has the judgment of the Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow of 25 June 2014 granting the residence order in respect of the children to the 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 25 June 2014?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy