Communicated on 22 May 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 26007/17
Myroslava Ivanivna ZABARA
against Ukraine
lodged on 29 March 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Myroslava Ivanivna Zabara, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Kozelne. She is represented before the Court by Mr O.V. Levytskyy and Mr V.M. Khekalo, lawyers practising in Kyiv.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 September 2008 the applicant married I. The couple lived at I.’s residence in the village of Murafa, Kharkiv Region.
In 2009 and 2010 the applicant gave birth to two girls.
The relations between the applicant and I. deteriorated and in 2012 they decided to separate. In July 2012 the applicant moved to live with her parents in another village. I. prevented the applicant from taking the children with her.
In October 2012 I. initiated court proceedings for divorce and requested the court to rule that the children should live with him. The applicant submitted a counterclaim, arguing that the children should live with her.
On 23 May 2013 the Krasnokutskyy District Court of Kharkiv Region dissolved the marriage and determined that the children should live with I. On 17 September 2013 the Karkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 15 January 2014 the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters quashed those decisions as regards the determination of the children’s place of residence and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a new consideration of that issue, noting that the case-file contained contradictory evidence.
On 31 January 2017 the first-instance court ruled that the children should live with I. The applicant appealed. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (29 March 2017), the appeal proceedings were still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings concerning her children’s place of residence has been excessive and that the courts have failed to ensure a prompt examination of the dispute, thus damaging her relationships with the children. The applicant also complains that the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the length of the custody proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has the length of the custody proceedings breached the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy