5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in the village of Gereykhanova, the Republic of Dagestan. 6.  In November 2006 the applicant got married to F.Kh. In September 2007 she gave birth to their son, A. The applicant, her son and husband lived at his parents’ house in the village of Stepnoy near the town of Makhachkala. 7.  In February 2008 the family’s relationship deteriorated and the applicant left the house. According to her, her husband and his parents forced her to leave and did not let her take her son, then aged some five months. 8.  Thereafter the applicant applied to a court, seeking to divorce her husband and asking for alimony payments and custody of her son. 9.  On 12 August 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala examined the applicant’s case. The court essentially granted the applicant’s claims, having pronounced the divorce, awarded the applicant alimony payments and custody of her son. 10.  On 14 November 2008 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan (the Supreme Court) upheld the judgment of 12 August 2008. 1.  First round of the enforcement proceedings
(a)  Writ of execution and the bailiffs’ attempts to locate the applicant’s former husband 11.  On 5 December 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala issued a writ of execution, which quoted the ruling of the judgment of 12 August 2008 as follows:
“[The court decided that] the place of residence of child Khanamirov Anrid Faridovich, born on 20 September 2007, should be with [the applicant].”
The writ specified that the applicant’s former husband’s resided in the village of Stepnoy, near Makhachkala. 12.  The applicant applied for enforcement within a few days and in December 2008 the bailiffs of the Leninskiy District of Makhachkala of the Department of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service of the Republic of Dagestan opened enforcement proceedings in this connection. 13.  Having learned that in the meantime the applicant’s former husband had moved to another house belonging to his family and identified the actual place of his residence in the village of Magaramkent, on 18 February 2009 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings and transferred the case to the Magaramkentskiy District Department of the Federal Service of Court Bailiffs of the Republic of Dagestan.
(b)  First attempt to enforce the judgment of 12 August 2008 14.  On 5 March 2009 the competent local bailiffs opened the enforcement proceedings. 15.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs informed the applicant’s former husband of his duty to hand the child over to the applicant and set a five-day time-limit for for him to comply with the request voluntarily. It appears that the applicant’s former husband did not comply with the bailiffs’ request and refused to transfer the child to the applicant voluntarily. 16.  On 3 April 2009 a bailiff, along with the applicant, paid a visit to the home of the applicant’s former husband and his parents. In the presence of a paediatrician, a psychologist, a representative of the local child welfare service and two attesting witnesses the bailiff physically removed the applicant’s son from his father and handed him over to the applicant. The child was seriously stressed during the procedure and resisted. 17.  According to the bailiff’s report of 3 April 2009, the applicant had “refused to take her son and to enforce the judgment of 12 August 2008”. The applicant, along with her former husband, the paediatrician, the psychologist, the representative of the local child welfare service and two attesting witnesses, signed the bailiff’s report and left the house. 18.  It appears that the applicant still wanted to enforce the judgment but objected to the manner in which the bailiff had acted on 3 April 2009.
(c)  Examination of the bailiffs’ request to terminate the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case 19.  The bailiffs decided that the applicant did not want to pursue the enforcement proceedings and on 6 April 2009 they applied to the Magaramkentskiy District Court of the Republic of Dagestan (the Magaramkentskiy District Court) to have the enforcement proceedings terminated. 20.  On 16 October 2009 the Magaramkentskiy District Court examined the bailiffs’ request. At the hearing the applicant continued to insist on the transfer of the child to her and asked the court to reject the bailiffs’ request. The court noted the applicant’s apparent waiver of her rights under the judgment of 12 August 2008 had been manifested by her refusal to take her son on 3 April 2009 and terminated the enforcement proceedings on the basis of the provisions of the relevant domestic law concerning the enforcement of monetary debts and debts in kind (Article 439 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, see the relevant domestic law section below). It does not appear that the domestic law provided for special rules as regards the enforcement of custody claims. 21.  On the applicant’s appeal on 18 November 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 16 October 2009.
(d)  The applicant’s attempt to challenge the bailiff’s report of 3 April 2009 22.  In a parallel set of proceedings the applicant challenged the actions of the bailiffs and the report of 3 April 2009, alleging that the bailiff who had attempted to carry out the enforcement had deceived her into signing it. According to the applicant, the bailiff had only shown her the second page of the report and had told her that she had been required to sign it in order to be allowed to take her son. Once she had signed the report, the bailiff had allegedly refused to enforce the judgment of 12 August 2008. 23.  On 9 June 2009 the Magaremkentskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The court questioned the bailiff, the paediatrician, the psychologist, the representative of the local child welfare service and two attesting witnesses, who all gave an essentially similar description of the events of 3 April 2009. The witnesses stated that the bailiff had taken the child from his father and had given him to the applicant, but the child had resisted, cried, pushed himself away from the applicant and run to his father. The applicant had stated that the child would be better off living with his father and had refused to take him. The witnesses also testified that the applicant had read all the pages of the report before signing it. The court checked and disproved the applicant’s allegations that she had been deceived by the bailiff. It then concluded that both the report of 3 April 2009 and the bailiff’s actions had been lawful. 24.  On 26 August 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 9 June 2009.
(e)  Supervisory review proceedings in respect of the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings 25.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a request with the Supreme Court to review the decisions of 16 October 2009 and 18 November 2009 by way of supervisory review. 26.  On 26 March 2010 a judge of the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s request and reopened the proceedings. 27.  On 10 June 2010 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 16 October 2009 and 18 November 2009. The Court considered that under the domestic law the bailiffs had had no right to request the court to terminate the enforcement proceedings and that such a request could only have been lodged by the applicant herself. It further stated that under Article 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicant would have had to explicitly waive her claims in court. The court noted that these two conditions had not been met and remitted the bailiffs’ request to terminate the enforcement proceedings for a fresh examination at first instance. 28.  On 14 September 2010 the Magaramkentskiy District Court examined and rejected in full the bailiffs’ request to terminate the enforcement of the judgment of 12 August 2008, reiterating the conclusions reached by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. 29.  On 7 October 2010 the bailiffs opened the enforcement proceedings with regard to the judgment of 12 August 2008. The applicant’s former husband’s place of residence was located in the village of Magaramkent, the Republic of Dagestan. The latter informed the bailiffs that the child was staying with his parents. 30.  On 9 December 2010 the bailiffs requested the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala to clarify the manner in which the judgment of 12 August 2008 should be enforced. The bailiffs claimed that the terms of the writ of execution were too vague. 31.  On 25 January 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala issued a decision specifying that the judgment should be enforced by taking the applicant’s child from his father and any third persons and by handing him over to his mother. 32.  On 28 January 2011, the date on which the Government filed its latest set of observations, the judgment of 12 August 2008 was still unenforced.