Communicated on 30 August 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 19228/11 Zarifa GULIYEVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant , Ms Zarifa Rzagulu gizi Guliyeva , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Baku.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Facts pertinent to the applicant ’ s visiting rights

In 1999 the applicant ’ s only son, Mr Elkhan G., married Ms D.G. On 30 August 2001 Ms D.G. gave birth to the applicant ’ s grandson, A.G.

According to the applicant, A.G. ’ s maternal grandfather, Mr Etibar G., was not letting Mr Elkhan G. and the applicant to see and interact with A.G. from the day the latter was born.

By a judgment of 13 September 2002 the Nasimi District Court set visiting times to allow Mr Elkhan G. see his son A.G. every Saturday and Sunday between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. According to the applicant, Mr Etibar G. obstructed execution of that judgment.

In 2004 Mr Elkhan G. died of heart failure.

The applicant lodged a civil claim before domestic courts. She asked the courts to recognise and ensure her right to see and communicate with her grandson.

By a judgment of 6 October 2006 the Baku Court of Appeal set visiting times to allow the applicant to see A.G. every Saturday between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. According to the applicant, Mr Etibar G. obstructed execution of that judgment too. The Bailiffs and Ushers Service of the Yasamal District Court documented those obstructions to the execution of the judgment in several records (“ akt ”).

2. Facts pertinent to the adoption of A.G. by his grandfather

According to the applicant, for some period it was not possible to execute the judgment also because the respondent party changed their address. On an unspecified date the new address was identified, but Mr Etibar G. objected to the execution of the judgment of 6 October 2006. He asked the Baku Court of Appeal to clarify the judgment in question.

On 2 July 2008 the Baku court of appeal held a hearing to examine the above ‑ mentioned objection of Mr Etibar G. During that hearing the applicant learned that Mr Etibar G. had adopted A.G. and the boy ’ s surname and his patronymic had been changed accordingly. The adoption w as effected by a judgment of 11 December 2006 of the Sabunchu District Court.

After obtaini ng a copy of the judgment of 11 December 2006 the applicant decided to lodge an appeal against it. The domestic courts first declared her appeal inadmissible.

However, by a decision of 15 September 2009 the Supreme Court recognised the applicant ’ s right to appeal against the judgment of 11 December 2006. Afterwards the applicant ’ s lodged her appeal against the judgment of 11 December 2006. She argued that that judgment had been in breach of her right to see and communicate with her grandson. She submitted that according to the Family Code, relatives on a child ’ s deceased parent ’ s side had the right to communicate with him/her. She also argued that according to the Family Code, a judgment on a child ’ s adoption must contain a note indicating that the relationship between him/her and his/her relatives on a deceased parent ’ s side maintain.

On 25 May 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

By a decision of 30 September 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the a ppellate court ’ s judgment of 25 May 2010.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains und er Article 8 of the Convention that the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 2006, confirming her right to see and communicate with her grandson, constituted violation of her family right.

The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the adoption proceedings were in breach of her family life as a grandmother of A.G.

2. The ap plicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 2006 was also in breach of her right to a fair trial.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant ’ s favour compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the State authorities have a positive duty under Article 8 of the Convention to protect the applicant ’ s right to family life? If so, did they comply with that duty under Article 8 of the Convention?

3. In the context of the proceedings le ading to the adoption of A.G. by Mr Etibar G., has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

4. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the domestic proceedings, including the applicant ’ s judicial complaints and appeals.