AFFAIRE Y.Y. ET Y.Y. c. RUSSIE

• Judgment Date: 08 March 2022
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0308JUD004322918
• Counsel: KOGAN V. ; WESSELINK E. ; STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE
• Date: 08 March 2022
• Application Number: 43229/18
• Court: Third Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Applied Rules: 8;8-1;41

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF Y.Y. AND Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 43229/18)

JUDGMENT

Art 8 • Positive obligations • Family life • Failure of authorities to take all reasonable measures, without undue delay, to enforce residence order of child in favour of mother

STRASBOURG

8 March 2022

FINAL

08/06/2022

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Y.Y. and Y.Y. v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President,
Georgios A. Serghides,
María Elósegui,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Peeter Roosma,
Frédéric Krenc,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 43229/18) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Y.Y. (“the first applicant”), on behalf of herself and her son, Y.Y. (“the second applicant”), also a Russian national, on 3 September 2018;

the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the decision to grant the application priority (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);

the decision to grant the applicants anonymity ex officio (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court);

the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants;

the comments submitted by the second applicant’s father, Mr A.Y., who was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;

Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The present case concerns the lengthy non-enforcement of domestic court judgments granting the first applicant a residence order in respect of the second applicant. It raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention.

THE FACTS

2. The applicants were born in 1983 and 2011 respectively and live in St Petersburg. They were represented by Ms V. Kogan and Mr E. Wesselink from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in Moscow.

3. The Government were initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background of the case

5. In 2005 the first applicant married A.Y. They established their residence in St Petersburg.

6. On 16 March 2011 the first applicant gave birth to their son, the second applicant.

7. In 2014 the marriage between the first applicant and A.Y. was dissolved. The second applicant remained in the first applicant’s care.

2. Proceedings TO DETERMINE the second applicant’s place of residence

8. In 2015 the first applicant lodged an application with the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) for a residence order in respect of the second applicant and a determination of the contact arrangements between him and A.Y.

9. On 22 October 2015 A.Y. collected the second...