5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland. 6.  On 30 January 1997 the applicant married M., a Polish national. On 20 June 1997 their daughter C. was born. 7.  In September 2008 M. instituted divorce proceedings in the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie). In the course of those proceedings, on 2 March 2009, the court issued an interim order prohibiting C. from leaving Poland. However, on the same date, M. and C. left Poland for Ukraine. They settled in Ivano-Frankivsk. 8.  On 21 March 2009 the applicant applied for proceedings to be opened against his wife in Ukraine in order to secure the return of their daughter to Poland in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (“the 1980 Hague Convention”). 9.  On 1 December 2009 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court found against the applicant. 10.  On 4 February 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court and ordered the return of C. to Poland. On the same date a writ of execution was issued. 11.  On 5 February 2010 a bailiff from the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service ordered the writ to be enforced at 8 a.m. on 8 February 2010. 12.  On 8 February 2010 the bailiff arrived at the address of C.’s great-grandmother and found that C. and M. were not there. Their relatives informed the bailiff that C. and M. had left Ukraine and they had not been told when they would be coming back. 13.  On 8 February 2010 the applicant asked for a search order for C. 14.  On 9 February 2010 the bailiff applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court to issue a search order for C. and, if and when she was found, to keep her in a children’s temporary care facility until the applicant arrived from Poland. On 12 February 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court set aside the bailiff’s application and granted him time to rectify some shortcomings in the application. 15.  On 24 February 2010 the bailiff made another visit to C.’s great‑grandmother and once again found that M. and C. were not present. Their relatives claimed ignorance of their whereabouts but they showed the bailiff a certificate indicating that C. was registered as an outpatient with the City Children’s Hospital. 16.  On 4 March 2010 the bailiff ordered the compulsory enforcement of the writ of execution for 8 a.m. on 5 March 2010. 17.  On 05 March 2010 the bailiff visited secondary school no. 3 and found that C. was registered there as a pupil, but was absent that day, possibly because of sickness, as, according to her teacher, the girl was often ill. 18.  On the same day the bailiff paid a visit to C.’s great-grandmother and found M. and C. absent and their whereabouts unknown. 19.  On 10 March 2010 M. applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service for suspension of the execution of the judgment of 4 February 2010 on account of C.’s illness. 20.  On 23 March 2010 the bailiff requested the Chief Registrar of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Children’s Hospital (“the Regional Hospital”) to provide information concerning the treatment C. was receiving as an outpatient at the hospital and whether the interruption of that treatment would cause her health to deteriorate. 21.  On 25 March 2010 the Regional Hospital reported that C. had been admitted on 10 March 2010 and was receiving treatment in the hospital’s centre for the early medical and social rehabilitation of children with organic diseases of the nervous system. Despite the necessity for the girl to continue being treated, it was felt that an interruption in the treatment would not affect her health adversely. 22.  On 25 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine delivered a decision ordering cassation proceedings in the applicant’s civil case and the suspension of the enforcement of the judgment of 4 February 2010 until the termination of the cassation proceedings. 23.  On 9 April 2010 the bailiff suspended the enforcement proceedings in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 25 March 2010. 24.  On 21 April 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk City police station informed the bailiff that M. had applied for permanent residence in Ukraine. 25.  On 30 April 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected an appeal by M. and upheld the judgment delivered by the Regional Court of Appeal on 4 February 2010. 26.  On 19 May 2010 the bailiff resumed the enforcement proceedings. 27.  On 9 June 2010 the bailiff ordered the compulsory enforcement of the writ of execution for 8.20 a.m. on 16 June 2010. 28.  On 16 June 2010 the bailiff visited C.’s great-grandmother and once again ascertained that M. and C. were absent. According to C.’s great- grandmother, M. and C. had left on 10 June 2010 for a summer holiday, but she did not know where they were staying. 29.  On 7 July 2010 the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine informed its regional department in Ivano-Frankivsk that according to the information it had received from the applicant, C. and M. were living in Simferopol at the home of C.’s grandmother. Consequently, on 9 July 2010, the bailiff took a decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings, notice of which (together with the writ of execution) was sent to the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Department of the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service”). 30.  On 29 July 2010 the bailiff of the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service took the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings in that district. 31.  According to the applicant, he made numerous requests to the Ukrainian authorities through the Polish Ministry of Justice for the acceleration of the enforcement proceedings and informed them that he had received messages from M. in which she had threatened him and declared that he would never see their daughter again. The Ukrainian authorities had either failed to notify him of the attempts at enforcement that had been made or had done so at such short notice that he could not possibly take part in them. For example, on 3 August 2010 he was notified that an enforcement attempt was planned for 6 August 2010. 32.  On 9 September 2010 the bailiff visited C.’s grandmother. and found that M. and C. were absent. Allegedly, on 5 September 2010 they had gone back to C.’s great-grandmother in Ivano-Frankivsk. C.’s grandmother further confirmed this in a written statement to the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service. 33.  On 10 September 2010 the bailiff took the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings and sent the writ of execution back to Ivano‑Frankivsk. 34.  On 27 September 2010 the bailiff of the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service took the decision to resume enforcement proceedings. 35.  On 11 October 2010 the bailiff went to the address of C.’s great‑grandmother but nobody answered the door. On the same day the State ordered the compulsory enforcement of the writ of execution for 8 a.m. on 15 October 2010. 36.  On 15 October 2010 the bailiff went again to C.’s great‑grandmother’s home but to no avail. 37.  On 26 October 2010 the Częstochowa Court in Poland granted a divorce to the applicant and M. The court further granted the applicant full parental rights over his daughter, while his former wife was granted limited parental rights and was ordered to pay child support. 38.  On 18 November 2010 the bailiff applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court with a request for a temporary care order to place the applicant’s daughter in a medical or juvenile institution until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland. 39.  On 7 December 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court set aside the bailiff’s application of 18 November 2010 and granted additional time for the rectification of some shortcomings in the application. 40.  On 20 December 2010 the bailiff went to the address of C.’s great grandmother but there was no answer. 41.  On 13 January 2011 the bailiff reapplied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court with a further request for a temporary care order to place the applicant’s daughter in a medical or juvenile institution until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland. 42.  On 24 January 2011 Ivano-Frankivsk City Court returned the application, declining jurisdiction to deal with the case. 43.  On 8 February 2011 the bailiff went again to the address of C.’s great-grandmother and again to no avail. 44.  On 9 February 2011 the bailiff applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal with a request for a temporary care order to place the applicant’s daughter in a medical or juvenile institution until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland. 45.  On 24 February 2011 the bailiff visited secondary school no. 3 in Ivano-Frankivsk and discovered that C. had left the school on 27 August 2010 because she had moved to Simferopol. On the same day the bailiff visited C.’s great-grandmother and found out that C. had not been resident at that address since the summer of 2010, as she had moved to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. 46.  On 25 February 2011 the bailiff asked the Ivano-Frankivsk Education Department whether C. was currently attending a school in the Ivano-Frankivsk region. 47.  On 28 February 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Education Department informed the bailiff that C. was no longer a pupil at any of its educational institutions and that M. had taken C.’s school file away from secondary school no. 3.in August 2010 because she and her daughter were moving to another region. 48.  On 3 March 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal held a hearing to examine the bailiff’s application of 9 February 2011 for a temporary care order to place C. in a medical or juvenile institution. On 4 March 2011, on instructions from the court, the bailiff requested written consent from a temporary care facility for children to place C. in that facility until the applicant’s arrival in Ukraine from Poland. The consent was provided that same day. 49.  On 10 March 2011 the bailiff asked the Ivano-Frankivsk Education Department whether C. was attending school in the Ivano-Frankivsk region at that time. 50.  On 14 March 2011 the bailiff made enquiries about the place of residence of M. and C. at the Residence Registry at the Ivano-Frankivsk regional police headquarters. 51.  On 15 March 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal allowed the request of the Ivano-Frankivsk Bailiffs’ Service for C. to be placed in the Ivano-Frankivsk temporary care facility for children while the judgment of 4 February 2010 was enforced. 52.  On 21 March 2011 the Residence Registry of the Ivano-Frankivsk regional police headquarters reported that M. had been registered as living at the address of her grandmother in Ivano-Frankivsk until 28 December 2005, when she had left for Poland, and C. was registered as living in the Ivano-Frankivsk region. 53.  On 25 March 2011 the bailiff made another enquiry with the Ivano‑Frankivsk Education Department as to whether C. was attending a school in the Ivano-Frankivsk region at that time. On 29 March 2011 the Department replied in the negative. 54.  On 30 March 2011 the bailiff went to the address of C.’s great‑grandmother but nobody answered the door. The neighbours alleged that they had not seen C. at that address since the summer of 2010. 55.  On 8 April 2011 the bailiff made an enquiry with the Simferopol Education Department as to whether C. was attending a school in that city at that time. 56.  By a letter of 27 April 2011 the Simferopol Education Department reported that the applicant’s daughter was currently attending secondary school no. 12 in Simferopol. This information was further confirmed on 6 May 2011 by the administration of the above-mentioned school. 57.  Consequently, on 10 May 2011 the bailiff of the Ivano-Frankivsk Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of execution for further enforcement to the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service in Simferopol. 58.  On 20 May 2011 the Kyivskiy State Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings. 59.  On 26 May 2011 the bailiff visited secondary school no. 12 and found out that, at M.’s request, citing family reasons, C. was temporarily absent from school for the period between 5 May and 15 June 2011. 60.  On 27 May 2011 the bailiff visited C.’s grandmother in Simferopol and found that M. and C. had left for Ivano-Frankivsk. 61.  On 31 May 2011 the bailiff in Simferopol asked the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service to check whether M. and C. were now living in Ivano-Frankivsk. 62.  On 9 June 2011 the bailiff in Ivano-Frankivsk visited C.’s great‑grandmother and were informed that M. and C. had not resided there since the summer of 2010. 63.  On 15 June 2011 the bailiff in Simferopol made repeated visits to C.’s grandmother but did not find M. or C. at that address. 64.  On 16 June 2011 the bailiff requested the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Court to issue a search order for M. and C. 65.  On 20 June 2011 the court ordered a search for M. and sent the decision to the Kyivskiy District police station for enforcement. 66.  On 23 June 2011 the bailiff in Ivano-Frankivsk visited C.’s great‑grandmother, who said (as was confirmed by some of her neighbours) that M. and C. were in Simferopol. 67.  On 30 June 2011 the bailiff in Simferopol suspended enforcement proceedings until M. was found and informed the parties of this decision. 68.  On 1 July 2011 the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Court ordered a search for C. and sent the decision for enforcement to the Kyivskiy District police station. 69.  On 27 July 2011 C. sent an application to the Acting Head of the Children’s Service of the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Council in which, in accordance with Article 160 § 3 of the Family Code (see paragraph 81 below), she declared her wish to live with her mother at her grandmother’s address in Simferopol. 70.  On 1 August 2011 and on 12 September 2011 the bailiff enquired at the Kyivskiy District police headquarters as to whether there had been any results of the search for M. and C. 71.  On 14 September 2011 the bailiff passed on a letter to the Kyivskiy district police headquarters from the Polish Embassy, in which it was claimed that C. might be staying with her grandmother’s neighbours. 72.  On 12 October 2011 the bailiff enquired at the Kyivskiy district police headquarters as to whether there had been any results of the search for M. and C. 73.  On 13 October 2011 the Kyivskiy district police headquarters reported to the bailiff that its officers had visited C.’s grandmother and found that C. had been living with her at this address for about a year, during which time she had been studying at Simferopol secondary school no.12. After receiving this information, the bailiff then resumed the enforcement proceedings, on 14 October 2011. 74.  On 14 October 2011 the bailiff requested the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal for clarification of the further order of execution of the judgment of 4 February 2010, since by the day the enforcement proceedings were due to be resumed C. had attained the age of fourteen and, in accordance with Article 160 § 3 of the Family Code, she then had the right to choose a place of residence at her own discretion. The bailiff suspended the proceedings on that same day until the examination of that request. 75.  On 17 November 2011 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal examined the bailiff’s request of 14 October 2011 and delivered a decision to reject it. 76.  On 22 December 2011, with the help of the Polish Embassy, the applicant succeeded in meeting C., but she refused to return to Poland. According to the applicant, wishing to act in the interests of his child and unwilling to use coercion, he then applied for suspension of the enforcement proceedings as C. had expressed a desire to return to Poland at the beginning of the winter holidays. 77.  On 23 January 2012 the applicant had met with his daughter in the presence of the Polish Consul. C. had refused to return to Poland with her father but had agreed to visit him there during the spring holidays. The same day the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the applicant upon his request as he and his daughter had come to an agreement to communicate voluntarily and C. had consented to visit him in Poland for the spring and summer holidays. As a result of this, the enforcement proceedings, ordered by the judgment of 4 February 2010, were terminated. 78.  On 16 March 2012 the applicant requested the reopening of the enforcement proceedings as the promises made previously had not been kept. 79.  The preamble of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which Ukraine acceded on 1 September 2006 (Law of 11 January 2006 no. 3303-IV on accession of Ukraine to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction), includes the following statement as to its purpose:
“ ... to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence ...” 80.  The relevant provisions of the Hague Convention read as follows:
Article 3
“The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where
(a)  it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or the retention; and
(b)  at the time of the removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. ...”
Article 7
“Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective States to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of this Convention.
In particular, either directly or through any intermediary, they shall take all appropriate measures
(a)  To discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained;
(b)  To prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to interested parties by taking or causing to be taken provisional measures;
(c)  To secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues;
(d)  To exchange, where desirable, information relating to the social background of the child;
(e)  To provide information of a general character as to the law of their State in connection with the application of the Convention;
(f)  To initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access;
(g)  Where the circumstances so require, to provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers;
(h)  To provide such administrative arrangements as may be necessary and appropriate to secure the safe return of the child;
(i)  To keep each other informed with respect to the operation of this Convention and, as far as possible, to eliminate any obstacles to its application.”
Article 11
“The judicial or administrative authorities of Contracting States shall act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.
If the judicial or administrative authority concerned has not reached a decision within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings, the applicant or the Central Authority of the requested State, on its own initiative or if asked by the Central Authority of the requesting State, shall have the right to request a statement of the reasons for the delay. ...”
Article 12
“Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 ..., the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.”
Article 13
“Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that
...
(b)  there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. ...” 81.  The relevant provision of the Code reads as follows:
Article 160The right of parents to determine the child’s place of residence
“... 3. If the parents live separately, the residence of a child who has reached the age of fourteen shall be determined by the child himself or herself.” 82.  The relevant provisions of the law read as follows:
Section 40Declaration of a search
“1.  In absence of information regarding the place of permanent or temporary residence or whereabouts ... of a child in documents relating to the enforcement proceedings for the return of the child, the State bailiff shall submit an application to the court to order a search for ... the child. ... 2.  The search for ... the child ... shall be carried out by authorities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs ...The order for the search shall be delivered either at the place of enforcement or the last known place of permanent or temporary residence or whereabouts of the debtor or the location of his or her property, or the place of residence (or whereabouts) of the plaintiff ...”
Section 77Enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child
“1.  During the enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child, the State bailiff shall carry out the enforcement measures with the compulsory participation of the person responsible for bringing up the child and with the cooperation of representatives from the relevant care institutions. 2.  If necessary, the State bailiff may apply to the court for a temporary order placing the child in an appropriate childcare or medical institution. 3.  If the debtor hinders the enforcement of the decision on the return of the child, the measures provided for by the law shall be imposed on him or her.”
Section 89Responsibility for non-enforcement of a decision, which requires the debtor to perform certain actions, and a decision on reinstatement
“1.  In case of non-enforcement without good reason within the time-limit established by the State bailiff of a decision that requires the debtor to perform certain actions ... the State bailiff shall take a decision to impose a fine on the debtor - individual in the amount of ten to twenty minimal incomes ... and set a new time-limit. 2.  In case of repeated non-enforcement by the debtor without good reason, the State bailiff shall by the same procedure impose on him a fine in the double amount and apply to law enforcement agencies with a request (notification) for bringing the debtor to criminal liability under the law.”
Section 90Responsibility for non-compliance with lawful requirements of the bailiff and for violation of this Law
“1.  For violation of this Law, non-compliance with the lawful requirements of the State bailiff ... the responsible persons shall be liable in accordance with the law. 2.  If there is evidence of a crime in the actions of a person who intentionally impedes the enforcement of judgment or otherwise violates the requirements of enforcement proceedings law, the State bailiff shall draw up a violation report and apply to law enforcement agencies with request (notification) for bringing the person to criminal liability under the law.”
The term “debtor” encompasses respondents in all types of enforcement proceedings, including enforcement of judgments on the return of children. 83.  The relevant provisions of the instruction read as follows: 8.3.  Enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child
“8.3.1.  During an enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child, the State bailiff shall carry out the enforcement measures with the compulsory participation of the person responsible for bringing up the child and with the cooperation of representatives from the relevant care institutions, and, if necessary, representatives of childcare and educational agencies and health care workers. 8.3.2.  If necessary, the State bailiff may apply to the court for a temporary order placing the child in an appropriate childcare or medical institution. 8.3.3.  If it is impossible to determine the whereabouts of the respondent, the child or both, the State bailiff may apply to the court to order a search for the child or the respondent. If the enforcement is hindered by the respondent, the State bailiff may decide to impose a fine on him or her. 8.3.4.  During the enforcement of a judgment on the return of a child, it is forbidden to apply physical force to the child ...”