Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

ISRAPILOVY v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 17432/21 • ECHR ID: 001-212359

Document date: September 16, 2021

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

ISRAPILOVY v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 17432/21 • ECHR ID: 001-212359

Document date: September 16, 2021

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 4 October 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 17432/21 Tatyana Igorevna ISRAPILOVA and Amina Shamilevna ISRAPILOVA against Russia lodged on 30 March 2021 communicated on 16 September 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the failure of the domestic authorities to assist the applicants, mother and daughter, in being reunited by failing to enforce the judgments granting the first applicant a residence order in respect of the second applicant and obliging the second applicant’s father to hand her over to the first applicant.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their 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 applicants’ right to respect for their family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Were the judgment of the Kogalym Town Court of the Khanty ‑ Mansy Autonomous Region of 19 December 2012 granting the first applicant a residence order in respect of the second applicant and the judgment of the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala of 19 July 2017 obliging the second applicant’s father to hand the second applicant over to the first applicant enforced in due time?

(b) Did the domestic authorities take, without undue delay, all the measures that they could reasonably have been expected to take to enforce the above judgments? Reference is made to the findings made by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan in its judgment of 5 March 2020.

(c) Was there a regulatory framework securing the effective and prompt enforcement of the above judgments? Reference is made to the specific aspects of enforcement proceedings raised by the applicants in the complaint.

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.Tatyana Igorevna ISRAPILOVA

1971Russian

Moscow

2.Amina Shamilevna ISRAPILOVA

2011Russian

Makhachkala, the Republic of Dagestan

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255