Published on 19 July 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 16855/18 Anastasiya Nikolayevna FEDOROVA against Russia lodged on 21 March 2018 c ommunicated on 30 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a child residence dispute. A domestic court issued an interim residence order under which the applicant ’ s daughter was to live with her pending the main residence order proceedings. The interim order was quashed on appeal and a new interim order was issued under which the applicant ’ s daughter was to live with her father pending the main residence order proceedings. The appeal court did not hold an oral hearing. The applicant was not served with a copy of the father ’ s appeal submissions or given an opportunity to make submissions in reply. She was eventually granted a residence order in her favour in the main proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there exceptional circumstances that justified dispensing with an oral hearing on appeal against the interim residence order (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal , nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 188-91 , 21 June 2016; see also, on appeal hearings, Helmers v. Sweden , 29 October 1991, §§ 36-39, Series A no. 212 ‑ A, and on interim measures, Helmut Blum v. Austria , no. 33060/10, §§ 70-74, 5 April 2016)? Did the failure to serve the opposing party ’ s appeal submissions against the interim residence order breach the applicant ’ s right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms (see Gryaznov v. Russia , no. 19673/03, §§ 52-54, 12 June 2012, with further references)?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, given that the appeal court did not hold an oral hearing and that the applicant was not served with the opposing party ’ s appeal submissions and was not given an opportunity to make submissions either orally or in writing on the issue of interim residence order, was she involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide her with the requisite protection of her interests (see Jucius and Juciuvienė v. Lithuania , no. 14414/03, § 31, 25 November 2008, and R.S. v. Poland , no. 63777/09, § 68, 21 July 2015)?