Communicated on 29 June 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 66157/14
Petimat Abubashirovna YUSUPOVA
against Russia
lodged on 11 September 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Petimat Abubashirovna Yusupova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Grozny. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Since September 2006 the applicant lived with A.A. in extramarital relationship.
On 24 June 2007 a son was born to the couple.
In September 2007 relations between the couple deteriorated and they separated. The child continued to live with the applicant.
In August 2011 the applicant’s brother-in-law asked the applicant’s permission to take the child for a couple of days see his father, A.A., who was visiting from Moscow. The applicant agreed.
The child was never returned to the applicant. A.A. took the boy to Moscow, and the applicant has not seen him since. She twice went to Moscow trying to find A.A., in vain.
The applicant applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny (the District Court) for a residence order in respect of the child. She also asked the court to oblige A.A. to pay child maintenance.
For a long time the District Court could not start the examination of the applicant’s claims, because A.A. failed to appear.
The applicant applied to the police asking to locate A.A.
On 31 May 2012 an investigator of the Investigations Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in the Chechen Republic called the applicant and asked her to come to the Investigations Department.
When the applicant arrived she saw her son and A.A. She bent to hug the boy. At this moment A.A. punched the applicant in the area of her left ear. The applicant fell down hitting her head against the concrete floor and lost consciousness. She recovered in the hospital and was subsequently diagnosed by the forensic medical expert with traumatic rupture of left eardrum, intracranial hypertension syndrome, astheno-neurotic syndrome and bruising of left cheekbone soft tissues. Pre-investigation inquiry was carried out into the above incident, and on 24 March 2014 the institution of criminal proceedings against A.A. was refused.
Meanwhile, A.A. lodged before the District Court a counterclaim seeking to obtain the residence order in respect of the child.
On 27 December 2012 the District Court decided that the child should reside with his mother, the applicant, and that A.A. should pay the applicant child maintenance. A.A.’s claims for residence order were dismissed.
On 7 May 2013 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic (the Supreme Court) upheld the judgment of 27 December 2012 on appeal.
However, A.A. refused to comply with the judgment.
On 12 August 2013 the District Court issued a writ of execution.
On the same day the bailiffs of the Interdistrict Bailiffs Service of the Chechen Republic opened enforcement proceedings in this connection.
It was established from the words of A.A.’s mother that A.A. lived in Moscow. Consequently, the enforcement material was referred to the Golovinskiy District Bailiffs Service in Moscow.
On 19 November 2013 the bailiffs of the Golovinskiy District Bailiffs Service established that A.A. did not live at the address in Moscow indicated in the writ of enforcement, and on 9 December 2013 the enforcement material was returned to the Bailiffs Service in the Chechen Republic.
On 25 March 2014 the bailiff of the Oktyabrskiy District Bailiffs Service of Grozny found that the bailiffs of the Golovinskiy District Bailiffs Service had failed to take all the measures provided by the law on enforcement proceedings necessary for the enforcement of the judgement of 27 December 2012, namely, to inspect the premises and draw the relevant act of inspection, to involve the local police office in carrying out the enforcement measures, to question A.A.’s partner O.S. indicated as the child’s mother in the latter’s medical record, and to institute a search of A.A. and the child. On the same day the enforcement material was again referred to the Golovinskiy District Bailiffs Service in Moscow.
In June 2014 the applicant applied to the Golovinskiy District Bailiffs Service in order to enquire about the progress of the enforcement proceedings. She was informed about the referral of the enforcement material to the Oktyabrskiy Bailiffs Service in Grozny in December 2013.
The applicant then applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Bailiffs Service of Grozny, which informed her that they did not know the whereabouts of the enforcement material.
The judgment of 27 December 2012 remains unenforced to the present date.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 27 December 2012 granting her the residence order in respect of the child.
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 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny of 27 December 2012 granting the residence order in respect of the child 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 27 December 2012?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy