I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in DYMOV v. RUSSIA.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DYMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14187/21 and 3 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
18 September 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dymov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 August 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from disputes related to childcare. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. 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 applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained principally of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from disputes related to childcare. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that the applicants complained about determination and/or enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights and international child abduction. In the leading cases 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 issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic authorities failed to take, without delay, all the measures that could reasonably have been expected of them to assist the applicants in being reunited with their children, and/or to fairly balance the interests of all parties involved in the proceedings – both parents and the child (children) – in a decision-making process which provided the applicants with the requisite protection of their interests safeguarded by Article 8 and allowed the best interests of the children to be established, and/or to give sufficient reasons commensurate with the seriousness of the interests at stake to justify their interference for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 11. In applications nos. 17432/21 and 40866/21, the applicants also complained that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 8, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. 12. In view of the findings in paragraphs 8-10 above under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, §§ 85-89, 23 November 2021). 13. In application no. 41250/21, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. 14. 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 Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 15. As regards the applicants-children (second applicants in applications nos. 17432/21 and 40866/21), it considers that the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction for any non‐pecuniary damage they have suffered as a result of the violation of their Article 8 rights. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (referred to in the appended table), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants and dismisses any other claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
(interference with the right to respect for family life stemming from disputes related to childcare)
No. 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
Specific defects
Summary of the factual circumstances
Final domestic decision
Court name
Date
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
14187/21
18/02/2021
Grigory Andreyevich DYMOV
1986

Dorayev Mergen Germanovich
Moscow
International Child Abduction –
Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019;

Thompson v. Russia, no. 36048/17, 30 March 2021

(Failure of domestic courts to comply with positive obligations to secure respect for family life through inadequate interpretation and application of Hague Convention, leading to refusal of the father’s request to return his daughter after wrongful and arbitrary removal from Sweden)
In 2014 the applicant married Ms T.D. The couple settled in Sweden. They have both Russian and Swedish nationality and own a house in Sweden. In 2015 and 2017 T.D. gave birth to two children - V. and T., who also have Russian and Swedish nationality. Their travel passports were issued in Sweden. At the time of the events in question Ms T.D. was a full-time student at the University of Stockholm, she was receiving child allowances and voted in elections in Sweden. The applicant and Ms T.D. requested and were offered places in a kindergarten in Sweden for their children. In the period between December 2017 and December 2018 the family often travelled to Russia staying at various places, including the applicant’s premarital flat in Moscow, Ms T.D.’s parents’ house in the Moscow Region and a rented flat in Sochi, the Krasnodar Region. After the trips they always returned to their family home in Sweden. After one of the trips to Russia in December 2018 the applicant returned to Sweden with the elder son V., while the younger daughter T. remained with her mother in Russia. By that time the applicant and Ms T.D. decided to divorce, but it was agreed that she and T. would also return to Sweden on 16/01/2019. However, Ms T.D. did not return T. Without the applicant’s consent, she had the children’s residence registered in Moscow at the address they had never lived before. On 26/02/2019 the applicant lodged an application with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow seeking his daughter’s return to Sweden under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which both Russia and Sweden are parties. On 27/05/2019 his application was rejected with the following reasoning. It was not proven that Sweden had been T.’s habitual place of residence; the wrongfulness of her removal from Sweden and retention in Russia was not established; in view of her young age the child was deeply attached to her mother, who created all the necessary conditions for her development and upbringing in Russia; the child adapted to her life in Russia; her return to Sweden would not be in her best interests as it would entail separation from her mother who had no intention to return to the Sweden. The applicant’s appeals were rejected. Meanwhile, on 12/03/2019 a court in Stockholm rejected Ms T.D.’s claim for V.’s return to her. It found no grounds for finding Russia to be the place of his habitual residence. This decision was upheld on appeal on 28/05/2019. On 27/12/2019 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow determined that T. should reside with Ms T.D. in Russia. As regards V., her claim for a residence order was rejected in view of the fact that he resided for a long time with the applicant in Sweden, where familiar and comfortable conditions were put in place for his life, development and education. On 30/06/2020 the Moscow City Court upheld this judgment on appeal. Supreme Court of Russia, 18/08/2020
10,000
6,800
17432/21
30/03/2021
Tatyana Igorevna ISRAPILOVA
1971

Amina Shamilevna ISRAPILOVA
2011

Savvina Tatyana Yuryevna
Moscow
Non-enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights –
Pakhomova v. Russia, no. 22935/11, 24 October 2013;

Muruzheva v. Russia, no. 62526/15, 15 May 2018;

Gubasheva and Ferzauli v. Russia, no. 38433/17, 5 May 2020;

A.B.V. v. Russia, no. 56987/15, 2 October 2018;

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021

(Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite the first applicant with her child, the second applicant, after the latter had been kidnapped by father)
The applicants are mother and daughter. On 19/12/2012 the Kogalym Town Court of the Khanty Mansy Autonomous Region dissolved the first applicant’s marriage with Mr I. and granted her a residence order in respect of the second applicant. Until June 2015 the applicants lived together in Kogalym, Tyumen Region. However, during his meeting with the second applicant in June 2015, I. took her to the Republic of Dagestan and did not return. After a failed attempt to obtain the institution of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19/12/2012, the first applicant pursued separate proceedings in order to oblige I. to return the child. On 19/07/2017 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala granted her claim. The judgment entered into force on 04/12/2017. At the request of the first applicant, on 24/01/2018 the enforcement proceedings were instituted. On 05/03/2020 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, following the first applicant’s complaint, found unlawful the bailiff’s inactivity in the enforcement proceedings. On 28/10/2021 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation further ordered the head of the Department of the Federal Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Dagestan to eliminate violations of law in the enforcement proceedings. The judgment remains unenforced. Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, 04/12/2017
12,500 to the first applicant;

the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
4,761.50 to be paid to the bank account of the applicants’ representative
40866/21
09/08/2021

F.K. 1978

S.K. 2011

Wesselink Egbert
Utrecht
Failure to assist the applicants in being reunited –

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021

(Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite the first applicant with her child, the second applicant, after the latter had been abducted by a person having no proven biological or legal tie with her)
The applicants are mother and son (“the first applicant” and “the second applicant” respectively) from the North Caucasus Region of the Russian Federation. In 2010 the first applicant entered in a religious marriage with Mr I.T. They separated the same year. Shortly after their separation the second applicant was born in 2011. His birth certificate does not mention I.T. as his father, the relevant field in the certificate is blank. I.T. never sought to establish his paternity in respect of the child. In 2012-2019 the applicants lived in Poland and Germany. They were deported back to Russia (the Chechen Republic) in September 2019. In February 2020 I.T. abducted the child. The first applicant sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against him, in vain. She challenged the lawfulness of this decision before the court, also in vain. While the proceedings were pending, she managed to return the boy on two occasions, in June and December 2020. After the first return of the child the first applicant was threatened by the police and the commission for the affairs of minors and had to give the child back to I.T. After the second return, she left Grozny fearing that her son would be again abducted. Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, 10/02/2021
12,500 to the first applicant;

the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
2,407.50 to be paid to the bank account of the applicants’ representative
41250/21
26/07/2021
Andrey Igorevich LARIONOV
1986

Roslov Andrey Nikolayevich
Orel
Determination of child residence/contact rights –

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021;

Nechay v. Russia, no. 40639/17, 25 May 2021;
Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, 23 October 2018

(Failure of the domestic authorities to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision to make a residence order in favour of the child’s mother)
The applicant is the father of a child born in 2013. In 2018 he and the child’s mother divorced, and the child stayed with the applicant. On 15/11/2018 the Orlovskiy District Court of the Orel Region determined the child’s residence with the mother. The judgment could never be enforced given the child’s categorical refusal to live with his mother. On 25/10/2019 the applicant instituted proceedings for a child residence order in his favour. On 23/04/2020 the Sovetskiy District Court of Orel granted his claim. The District Court established that both parents had suitable living conditions, both were employed and had sufficient income. None of the parents had the record of improper parenting. However, the results of the forensic psychiatric examination of the parents and the child showed that the latter had the signs of the emerging syndrome of rejection of one of the parents (the mother), which was a pathological form of a child’s reaction to parental divorce where the child allied with one of the parents against the other. The child had a strong emotional bond with the applicant, who was the closest and most significant family member in his life, was deeply attached to and wanted to live with him. The child’s relationship with his mother was conflictual, he addressed her in a raised voice, in aggressive and accusing manner. The child did not include the mother in his family circle, had no emotional bond with her. His feelings towards the mother were ambivalent: not sufficiently close, yet the child needed positive and safe contact with her. The expert arrived at the conclusion that living with his mother would not be in the best interests of the child and could affect his psychological state. It was recommended, however, that the mother should have at least one contact a week with the child in the presence of the father. On 19/08/2020 the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the residence order to the mother. The Regional Court relied on Principle 6 of the United Nations 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, in accordance with which “a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother” and noted the absence of such exceptional circumstances. The applicant pursued cassation appeals, without success. The judgment remained unenforced at the date of the lodging of the application before the Court. No further information was provided by the parties. Supreme Court of Russia, 22/06/2021
6,000
-

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DYMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14187/21 and 3 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
18 September 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dymov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 August 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from disputes related to childcare. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. 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 applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained principally of the interference with their right to respect for their family life stemming from disputes related to childcare. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that the applicants complained about determination and/or enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights and international child abduction. In the leading cases 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 issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic authorities failed to take, without delay, all the measures that could reasonably have been expected of them to assist the applicants in being reunited with their children, and/or to fairly balance the interests of all parties involved in the proceedings – both parents and the child (children) – in a decision-making process which provided the applicants with the requisite protection of their interests safeguarded by Article 8 and allowed the best interests of the children to be established, and/or to give sufficient reasons commensurate with the seriousness of the interests at stake to justify their interference for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 11. In applications nos. 17432/21 and 40866/21, the applicants also complained that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 8, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. 12. In view of the findings in paragraphs 8-10 above under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, §§ 85-89, 23 November 2021). 13. In application no. 41250/21, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. 14. 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 Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 15. As regards the applicants-children (second applicants in applications nos. 17432/21 and 40866/21), it considers that the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction for any non‐pecuniary damage they have suffered as a result of the violation of their Article 8 rights. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (referred to in the appended table), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants and dismisses any other claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
(interference with the right to respect for family life stemming from disputes related to childcare)
No. 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
Specific defects
Summary of the factual circumstances
Final domestic decision
Court name
Date
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
14187/21
18/02/2021
Grigory Andreyevich DYMOV
1986

Dorayev Mergen Germanovich
Moscow
International Child Abduction –
Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019;

Thompson v. Russia, no. 36048/17, 30 March 2021

(Failure of domestic courts to comply with positive obligations to secure respect for family life through inadequate interpretation and application of Hague Convention, leading to refusal of the father’s request to return his daughter after wrongful and arbitrary removal from Sweden)
In 2014 the applicant married Ms T.D. The couple settled in Sweden. They have both Russian and Swedish nationality and own a house in Sweden. In 2015 and 2017 T.D. gave birth to two children - V. and T., who also have Russian and Swedish nationality. Their travel passports were issued in Sweden. At the time of the events in question Ms T.D. was a full-time student at the University of Stockholm, she was receiving child allowances and voted in elections in Sweden. The applicant and Ms T.D. requested and were offered places in a kindergarten in Sweden for their children. In the period between December 2017 and December 2018 the family often travelled to Russia staying at various places, including the applicant’s premarital flat in Moscow, Ms T.D.’s parents’ house in the Moscow Region and a rented flat in Sochi, the Krasnodar Region. After the trips they always returned to their family home in Sweden. After one of the trips to Russia in December 2018 the applicant returned to Sweden with the elder son V., while the younger daughter T. remained with her mother in Russia. By that time the applicant and Ms T.D. decided to divorce, but it was agreed that she and T. would also return to Sweden on 16/01/2019. However, Ms T.D. did not return T. Without the applicant’s consent, she had the children’s residence registered in Moscow at the address they had never lived before. On 26/02/2019 the applicant lodged an application with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow seeking his daughter’s return to Sweden under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which both Russia and Sweden are parties. On 27/05/2019 his application was rejected with the following reasoning. It was not proven that Sweden had been T.’s habitual place of residence; the wrongfulness of her removal from Sweden and retention in Russia was not established; in view of her young age the child was deeply attached to her mother, who created all the necessary conditions for her development and upbringing in Russia; the child adapted to her life in Russia; her return to Sweden would not be in her best interests as it would entail separation from her mother who had no intention to return to the Sweden. The applicant’s appeals were rejected. Meanwhile, on 12/03/2019 a court in Stockholm rejected Ms T.D.’s claim for V.’s return to her. It found no grounds for finding Russia to be the place of his habitual residence. This decision was upheld on appeal on 28/05/2019. On 27/12/2019 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow determined that T. should reside with Ms T.D. in Russia. As regards V., her claim for a residence order was rejected in view of the fact that he resided for a long time with the applicant in Sweden, where familiar and comfortable conditions were put in place for his life, development and education. On 30/06/2020 the Moscow City Court upheld this judgment on appeal. Supreme Court of Russia, 18/08/2020
10,000
6,800
17432/21
30/03/2021
Tatyana Igorevna ISRAPILOVA
1971

Amina Shamilevna ISRAPILOVA
2011

Savvina Tatyana Yuryevna
Moscow
Non-enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights –
Pakhomova v. Russia, no. 22935/11, 24 October 2013;

Muruzheva v. Russia, no. 62526/15, 15 May 2018;

Gubasheva and Ferzauli v. Russia, no. 38433/17, 5 May 2020;

A.B.V. v. Russia, no. 56987/15, 2 October 2018;

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021

(Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite the first applicant with her child, the second applicant, after the latter had been kidnapped by father)
The applicants are mother and daughter. On 19/12/2012 the Kogalym Town Court of the Khanty Mansy Autonomous Region dissolved the first applicant’s marriage with Mr I. and granted her a residence order in respect of the second applicant. Until June 2015 the applicants lived together in Kogalym, Tyumen Region. However, during his meeting with the second applicant in June 2015, I. took her to the Republic of Dagestan and did not return. After a failed attempt to obtain the institution of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19/12/2012, the first applicant pursued separate proceedings in order to oblige I. to return the child. On 19/07/2017 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala granted her claim. The judgment entered into force on 04/12/2017. At the request of the first applicant, on 24/01/2018 the enforcement proceedings were instituted. On 05/03/2020 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, following the first applicant’s complaint, found unlawful the bailiff’s inactivity in the enforcement proceedings. On 28/10/2021 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation further ordered the head of the Department of the Federal Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Dagestan to eliminate violations of law in the enforcement proceedings. The judgment remains unenforced. Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, 04/12/2017
12,500 to the first applicant;

the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
4,761.50 to be paid to the bank account of the applicants’ representative
40866/21
09/08/2021

F.K. 1978

S.K. 2011

Wesselink Egbert
Utrecht
Failure to assist the applicants in being reunited –

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021

(Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite the first applicant with her child, the second applicant, after the latter had been abducted by a person having no proven biological or legal tie with her)
The applicants are mother and son (“the first applicant” and “the second applicant” respectively) from the North Caucasus Region of the Russian Federation. In 2010 the first applicant entered in a religious marriage with Mr I.T. They separated the same year. Shortly after their separation the second applicant was born in 2011. His birth certificate does not mention I.T. as his father, the relevant field in the certificate is blank. I.T. never sought to establish his paternity in respect of the child. In 2012-2019 the applicants lived in Poland and Germany. They were deported back to Russia (the Chechen Republic) in September 2019. In February 2020 I.T. abducted the child. The first applicant sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against him, in vain. She challenged the lawfulness of this decision before the court, also in vain. While the proceedings were pending, she managed to return the boy on two occasions, in June and December 2020. After the first return of the child the first applicant was threatened by the police and the commission for the affairs of minors and had to give the child back to I.T. After the second return, she left Grozny fearing that her son would be again abducted. Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, 10/02/2021
12,500 to the first applicant;

the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
2,407.50 to be paid to the bank account of the applicants’ representative
41250/21
26/07/2021
Andrey Igorevich LARIONOV
1986

Roslov Andrey Nikolayevich
Orel
Determination of child residence/contact rights –

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021;

Nechay v. Russia, no. 40639/17, 25 May 2021;
Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, 23 October 2018

(Failure of the domestic authorities to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision to make a residence order in favour of the child’s mother)
The applicant is the father of a child born in 2013. In 2018 he and the child’s mother divorced, and the child stayed with the applicant. On 15/11/2018 the Orlovskiy District Court of the Orel Region determined the child’s residence with the mother. The judgment could never be enforced given the child’s categorical refusal to live with his mother. On 25/10/2019 the applicant instituted proceedings for a child residence order in his favour. On 23/04/2020 the Sovetskiy District Court of Orel granted his claim. The District Court established that both parents had suitable living conditions, both were employed and had sufficient income. None of the parents had the record of improper parenting. However, the results of the forensic psychiatric examination of the parents and the child showed that the latter had the signs of the emerging syndrome of rejection of one of the parents (the mother), which was a pathological form of a child’s reaction to parental divorce where the child allied with one of the parents against the other. The child had a strong emotional bond with the applicant, who was the closest and most significant family member in his life, was deeply attached to and wanted to live with him. The child’s relationship with his mother was conflictual, he addressed her in a raised voice, in aggressive and accusing manner. The child did not include the mother in his family circle, had no emotional bond with her. His feelings towards the mother were ambivalent: not sufficiently close, yet the child needed positive and safe contact with her. The expert arrived at the conclusion that living with his mother would not be in the best interests of the child and could affect his psychological state. It was recommended, however, that the mother should have at least one contact a week with the child in the presence of the father. On 19/08/2020 the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the residence order to the mother. The Regional Court relied on Principle 6 of the United Nations 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, in accordance with which “a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother” and noted the absence of such exceptional circumstances. The applicant pursued cassation appeals, without success. The judgment remained unenforced at the date of the lodging of the application before the Court. No further information was provided by the parties. Supreme Court of Russia, 22/06/2021
6,000
-

No. 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
Specific defects
Summary of the factual circumstances
Final domestic decision
Court name
Date
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
14187/21
18/02/2021
Grigory Andreyevich DYMOV
1986

Dorayev Mergen Germanovich
Moscow
International Child Abduction –
Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019;

Thompson v. Russia, no. 36048/17, 30 March 2021

(Failure of domestic courts to comply with positive obligations to secure respect for family life through inadequate interpretation and application of Hague Convention, leading to refusal of the father’s request to return his daughter after wrongful and arbitrary removal from Sweden)
In 2014 the applicant married Ms T.D. The couple settled in Sweden. They have both Russian and Swedish nationality and own a house in Sweden. In 2015 and 2017 T.D. gave birth to two children - V. and T., who also have Russian and Swedish nationality. Their travel passports were issued in Sweden. At the time of the events in question Ms T.D. was a full-time student at the University of Stockholm, she was receiving child allowances and voted in elections in Sweden. The applicant and Ms T.D. requested and were offered places in a kindergarten in Sweden for their children. In the period between December 2017 and December 2018 the family often travelled to Russia staying at various places, including the applicant’s premarital flat in Moscow, Ms T.D.’s parents’ house in the Moscow Region and a rented flat in Sochi, the Krasnodar Region. After the trips they always returned to their family home in Sweden. After one of the trips to Russia in December 2018 the applicant returned to Sweden with the elder son V., while the younger daughter T. remained with her mother in Russia. By that time the applicant and Ms T.D. decided to divorce, but it was agreed that she and T. would also return to Sweden on 16/01/2019. However, Ms T.D. did not return T. Without the applicant’s consent, she had the children’s residence registered in Moscow at the address they had never lived before. On 26/02/2019 the applicant lodged an application with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow seeking his daughter’s return to Sweden under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which both Russia and Sweden are parties. On 27/05/2019 his application was rejected with the following reasoning. It was not proven that Sweden had been T.’s habitual place of residence; the wrongfulness of her removal from Sweden and retention in Russia was not established; in view of her young age the child was deeply attached to her mother, who created all the necessary conditions for her development and upbringing in Russia; the child adapted to her life in Russia; her return to Sweden would not be in her best interests as it would entail separation from her mother who had no intention to return to the Sweden. The applicant’s appeals were rejected. Meanwhile, on 12/03/2019 a court in Stockholm rejected Ms T.D.’s claim for V.’s return to her. It found no grounds for finding Russia to be the place of his habitual residence. This decision was upheld on appeal on 28/05/2019. On 27/12/2019 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow determined that T. should reside with Ms T.D. in Russia. As regards V., her claim for a residence order was rejected in view of the fact that he resided for a long time with the applicant in Sweden, where familiar and comfortable conditions were put in place for his life, development and education. On 30/06/2020 the Moscow City Court upheld this judgment on appeal. Supreme Court of Russia, 18/08/2020
10,000
6,800
17432/21
30/03/2021
Tatyana Igorevna ISRAPILOVA
1971

Amina Shamilevna ISRAPILOVA
2011

Savvina Tatyana Yuryevna
Moscow
Non-enforcement of child residence orders/contact rights –
Pakhomova v. Russia, no. 22935/11, 24 October 2013;

Muruzheva v. Russia, no. 62526/15, 15 May 2018;

Gubasheva and Ferzauli v. Russia, no. 38433/17, 5 May 2020;

A.B.V. v. Russia, no. 56987/15, 2 October 2018;

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021

(Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite the first applicant with her child, the second applicant, after the latter had been kidnapped by father)
The applicants are mother and daughter. On 19/12/2012 the Kogalym Town Court of the Khanty Mansy Autonomous Region dissolved the first applicant’s marriage with Mr I. and granted her a residence order in respect of the second applicant. Until June 2015 the applicants lived together in Kogalym, Tyumen Region. However, during his meeting with the second applicant in June 2015, I. took her to the Republic of Dagestan and did not return. After a failed attempt to obtain the institution of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19/12/2012, the first applicant pursued separate proceedings in order to oblige I. to return the child. On 19/07/2017 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala granted her claim. The judgment entered into force on 04/12/2017. At the request of the first applicant, on 24/01/2018 the enforcement proceedings were instituted. On 05/03/2020 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, following the first applicant’s complaint, found unlawful the bailiff’s inactivity in the enforcement proceedings. On 28/10/2021 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation further ordered the head of the Department of the Federal Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Dagestan to eliminate violations of law in the enforcement proceedings. The judgment remains unenforced. Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, 04/12/2017
12,500 to the first applicant;

the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
4,761.50 to be paid to the bank account of the applicants’ representative
40866/21
09/08/2021

F.K. 1978

S.K. 2011

Wesselink Egbert
Utrecht
Failure to assist the applicants in being reunited –

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021

(Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite the first applicant with her child, the second applicant, after the latter had been abducted by a person having no proven biological or legal tie with her)
The applicants are mother and son (“the first applicant” and “the second applicant” respectively) from the North Caucasus Region of the Russian Federation. In 2010 the first applicant entered in a religious marriage with Mr I.T. They separated the same year. Shortly after their separation the second applicant was born in 2011. His birth certificate does not mention I.T. as his father, the relevant field in the certificate is blank. I.T. never sought to establish his paternity in respect of the child. In 2012-2019 the applicants lived in Poland and Germany. They were deported back to Russia (the Chechen Republic) in September 2019. In February 2020 I.T. abducted the child. The first applicant sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against him, in vain. She challenged the lawfulness of this decision before the court, also in vain. While the proceedings were pending, she managed to return the boy on two occasions, in June and December 2020. After the first return of the child the first applicant was threatened by the police and the commission for the affairs of minors and had to give the child back to I.T. After the second return, she left Grozny fearing that her son would be again abducted. Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, 10/02/2021
12,500 to the first applicant;

the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant
2,407.50 to be paid to the bank account of the applicants’ representative
41250/21
26/07/2021
Andrey Igorevich LARIONOV
1986

Roslov Andrey Nikolayevich
Orel
Determination of child residence/contact rights –

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 24757/18, 23 November 2021;

Nechay v. Russia, no. 40639/17, 25 May 2021;
Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, 23 October 2018

(Failure of the domestic authorities to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision to make a residence order in favour of the child’s mother)
The applicant is the father of a child born in 2013. In 2018 he and the child’s mother divorced, and the child stayed with the applicant. On 15/11/2018 the Orlovskiy District Court of the Orel Region determined the child’s residence with the mother. The judgment could never be enforced given the child’s categorical refusal to live with his mother. On 25/10/2019 the applicant instituted proceedings for a child residence order in his favour. On 23/04/2020 the Sovetskiy District Court of Orel granted his claim. The District Court established that both parents had suitable living conditions, both were employed and had sufficient income. None of the parents had the record of improper parenting. However, the results of the forensic psychiatric examination of the parents and the child showed that the latter had the signs of the emerging syndrome of rejection of one of the parents (the mother), which was a pathological form of a child’s reaction to parental divorce where the child allied with one of the parents against the other. The child had a strong emotional bond with the applicant, who was the closest and most significant family member in his life, was deeply attached to and wanted to live with him. The child’s relationship with his mother was conflictual, he addressed her in a raised voice, in aggressive and accusing manner. The child did not include the mother in his family circle, had no emotional bond with her. His feelings towards the mother were ambivalent: not sufficiently close, yet the child needed positive and safe contact with her. The expert arrived at the conclusion that living with his mother would not be in the best interests of the child and could affect his psychological state. It was recommended, however, that the mother should have at least one contact a week with the child in the presence of the father. On 19/08/2020 the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the residence order to the mother. The Regional Court relied on Principle 6 of the United Nations 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, in accordance with which “a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother” and noted the absence of such exceptional circumstances. The applicant pursued cassation appeals, without success. The judgment remained unenforced at the date of the lodging of the application before the Court. No further information was provided by the parties. Supreme Court of Russia, 22/06/2021
6,000
-
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.