Communicated on 28 November 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 28982/19 Daniel Krastov BAHAROV against Ukraine lodged on 21 May 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Daniel Krastov Baharov , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and permanently lives in New York, USA. He is represented before the Court by Mr D.S. Krugovyy , a lawyer practising in Kharkiv .

The circumstances of the case

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

In 2008 the applicant married Ms B., a US and Ukrainian national. The couple lived in the USA. On 27 January 2010 their son, D. was born. On 11 February 2014 the couple divorced . On 15 May 201 4 the applicant and B. concluded a contract determining the conditions for parenting the child.

On 7 June 2016 the applicant gave B. permission to take the child from the USA to Turkey for holidays until 31 August 2016. On 19 July 2016 B. and D. moved from Turkey to Ukraine and have stayed there since then.

In October 2016 the applicant initiated a procedure under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (the Hague Convention) for the return of D. from Ukraine to the USA.

On 12 April 2017 the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice, acting in the interests of the applicant, lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv for the return of D. to the USA.

On 29 May 2017 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv dismissed the claim, finding that there had been reasons under the Hague Convention to refuse the return of the child to the USA.

On 30 August 2017 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court that had rejected the applicant ’ s claim.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed as unfounded by the Supreme Court on 29 November 2018.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the child return proceedings had been excessively long.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of his allegation that the respondent State has failed to deal promptly with his request for the return of his son to the USA? Did the domestic authorities comply with the requirement of speediness inherent in the proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?