Communicated on 15 October 2020 Published on 2 Nov ember 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 28141/20 Tetyana Vasylivna KUDRYAVTSEVA and Yuriy Georgiyovych KUDRYAVTSEV against Ukraine lodged on 12 March 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Tetyana Vasylivna Kudryavtseva and Mr Yuriy Georgiyovych Kudryavtsev , are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1980 and 1977 respectively and live in Kryvyy Rih . They are represented before the Court by Ms O.V. Ragozina , a lawyer practising in Kryvyy Rih .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicants were a foster family. They had two biological children and five foster children in their family. The first two foster children were given to the applicants in 2012, the other three children were given to them in April 2016.

On 3 June 2017 the police started a criminal investigation in respect of the disappearance of one of the foster children, following the applicants ’ request.

On 4 June 2017 the Executive Committee of the Tsentralno-Miskyy District in the city of Kryvyy Rih , having regard to the disappearance of the child, decided to remove all the other children from the applicants ’ care and have them placed in public care.

On 14 August 2017 the applicants challenged the above decision in the courts, arguing that it was unlawful and disproportionate with regard to the interests of all the children.

On 14 February 2018 the first-instance court granted the applicants ’ request for an interim measure and transferred their biological children to their grandfather living in the same city, pending the outcome of the case. The applicants ’ foster children remained in public care.

On 20 June 2019 the first-instance court suspended the proceedings on the grounds that there was a pending criminal case against the applicants on charges related to the child ’ s disappearance. On 30 July 2019 the Dnipro Court of Appeal quashed that decision and resumed the proceedings in the civil case, finding that the pending criminal charges did not prevent the consideration of the applicants ’ claims.

The proceedings before the first-instance court are ongoing.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention that the length of the court proceedings against the local authorities has been excessive and that the State authorities unlawfully interfered with their family life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide chronological information on the proceedings which the applicants complained about and the documents related to those proceedings.

2. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the authorities ’ decision to remove the children from the applicants and the manner the domestic courts reviewed that decision? Has the length of the above proceedings breached the applicants ’ right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention?