CASE OF LEONOV v. RUSSIA
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow. 6. On 21 August 2007 the applicant’s wife, Ch., gave birth to a son, A. 7. The family lived at the applicant’s flat, where A. had his registered residence. He received ongoing paediatric care at the neighbourhood children’s clinic and attended a neighbourhood nursery school. 8. In November 2009 Ch. decided to leave the applicant. She moved back to her parents’ residence and took A. with her. A. has been living with her ever since. 9. On 9 March 2010 the applicant applied to the Justice of the Peace of the 339th Court Circuit of the Vostochnoe Dergunino District of Moscow for a residence order under which A. would live with him. He was instructed to make corrections to his claim, which he did on 8 April 2010. On the same day the case was transferred to the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow. It registered the case on 26 April 2010 and scheduled the first hearing for 13 May 2010. 10. On 26 April 2010 Ch. lodged a counterclaim, asking for a residence order under which A. would live with her, and for an interim measure pending the proceedings. She claimed, in particular, that there was a risk that the applicant might kidnap A. and take him to Belarus, where his stepfather had a house. She stated that he had already tried to take A. away from her and had in particular attempted to pick him up from the boy’s nursery school. 11. On the same day, 26 April 2010, the Timiryazevskiy District Court allowed Ch.’s request for an interim measure and forbade the applicant from contacting A. or picking him up from the nursery school without Ch.’s prior permission. It held as follows: “The subject matter of the case is the residence of a child [A.] born in 2007. The parents have been unable to come to an agreement on this matter. The child is now living with his mother [Ch.]. The court therefore considers that the requested interim measure would be proportionate to the claim. Otherwise, failure to take interim measures might complicate or make impossible the execution of the forthcoming judgment.” 12. The applicant learned of the interim measure on 30 April 2010. On that day he came to visit A. at the nursery school and the teachers refused to let him see the boy, citing the interim order. 13. In April and May 2010 the Lyublino and Dergunino childcare authorities examined the applicant’s and Ch.’s flats and found their living conditions satisfactory and suitable for a small child. 14. The first hearing was scheduled for 20 May 2010 but it was adjourned until 24 May 2010 at the applicant’s request. The next hearing was scheduled for 9 June 2010 but it was also adjourned until 23 June 2010 for the purposes of “obtaining evidence”. 15. On 22 June 2010 the Lyublino childcare authority issued its report on the case. It considered that, by reason of his very young age, A. should reside with his mother. The childcare authority considered that it was particularly important for a child to be raised by the mother until the age of five or six. A lack of maternal care during that period, and in particular during the behavioural crises that a three-year-old typically undergoes, could result in the child developing negative character traits, such as stubbornness, surliness, hysterical reactions and inadequate social adaptation. The residence arrangements could be reconsidered after A. had reached the age of five or six years. 16. On 29 June 2010 the Timiryazevskiy District Court ordered an expert psychological examination and adjourned the proceedings. The experts were asked their opinion on what residence arrangements would be in A.’s best interests. 17. On 6 July 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Moscow City Court against the decision of 29 June 2010 ordering an expert examination. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 29 July 2010 but was adjourned until 17 August 2010 because the parties did not appear. On 17 August 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld on appeal the decision of 29 June 2010. The case file was sent to the experts on 8 September 2010. 18. Meanwhile, as Ch. had prevented him from seeing A., the applicant applied to the childcare authority for a contact order. On 15 July 2010 the childcare authority rejected the application, referring to the interim measure imposed by the Timiryazevskiy District Court. 19. On 9 August 2010 the District Court received by post the applicant’s appeal, dated 6 May 2010, against the decision of 26 April 2010 ordering the interim measure. The applicant submitted that there had been no justification for the interim measure, which had been motivated solely by the prevailing belief that a child should be raised by the mother rather than the father. He further submitted that the interim measure was contrary to A.’s best interests. A lack of contact with his father and the paternal family – A.’s grandparents, uncle, aunt and cousins – to whom he was very attached might cause A. psychological trauma. It might, moreover, result in A.’s estrangement from his father or, given his very young age, even his forgetting his father altogether. It also created a risk that Ch. might turn A. against his father. It might in turn mean that the results of any future expert examinations – and, by extension, any future judicial decision on the child’s residence – would be biased against the applicant. Lastly, the applicant submitted that the interim measure breached his right to maintain contact with his son. 20. On 17 September 2010 the Justice of the Peace of the 133th Court Circuit of the Mytichshinskiy District of the Moscow Region convicted Ch. of assault and battery, a criminal offence under Article 116 of the Criminal Code. In particular, the court found it established that on 20 June 2010 the applicant had approached Ch. and A. while they were playing at the local public beach and had hugged his son. Ch. had immediately snatched the boy away from him and had hit the applicant at least two times, causing him bodily injuries, before carrying the boy away. A fine was imposed on her. 21. On 11 November 2010 the experts issued their report. They found that it would be beneficial for A. to maintain contact with both parents. He was equally attached to both of them. Both parents were equally capable of raising the child. The serious conflict currently persisting between the parents could negatively affect A.’s psychological development. 22. On 12 November 2010 the proceedings were resumed. Hearings were scheduled for 24 November and 7 December 2010 but could not take place because some of the participants did not appear. 23. On 23 December 2010 the Dergunino childcare authority issued its report on the case. It found that A. should reside with his mother, referring to A.’s young age and the fact that he had lived with his mother for some time already and was attending a neighbouring nursery school. 24. During the hearing of 24 December 2010 the applicant lodged an objection against the judge of the Timiryazevskiy District Court, submitting that she (that is to say the judge) had stated on several occasions that she would rule against the applicant because according to the established practice of the Timiryazevskiy District Court a residence order was always made in favour of the mother. The judge dismissed the applicant’s objection. 25. On 18 January 2011 the Timiryazevskiy District Court allowed a request lodged by the applicant for the proceedings to be stayed; it accordingly stayed the residence order proceedings pending the criminal proceedings against Ch. 26. On 26 January 2011 the Mytishchi City Court upheld Ch.’s criminal conviction on appeal. The conviction acquired binding force. 27. On 8 February 2011 the Moscow City Court quashed on appeal the decision of 26 April 2010 ordering the interim measure. It found that the interim measure had been unconnected to the subject matter of the case and had therefore been disproportionate. There had been no evidence that the execution of the forthcoming judgment might be complicated or impossible. By applying the interim measure, the judge had prejudged the case. The City Court remitted Ch.’s request for an interim measure for fresh examination by the Timiryazevskiy District Court, which rejected it on 1 April 2011 as unsubstantiated. 28. Meanwhile, on 16 March 2011 the childcare authority instructed Ch. that she should stop preventing A. from seeing his paternal family. 29. On 30 March 2011 the Timiryazevskiy District Court granted the divorce of the applicant and Ch. 30. On 7 April 2011 the Moscow City Court, acting by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 26 January 2011 upholding Ch.’s conviction and remitted the criminal case for fresh examination by the appellate court. 31. On 12 April 2011 the Timiryazevskiy District Court resumed the residence order proceedings and held a hearing. 32. During the hearings the applicant stated that he possessed a comfortable flat in a safe and ecologically clean neighbourhood, with parks and schools in the vicinity. Before the applicant’s separation from his former wife, A. had attended a nursery school in that neighbourhood. The applicant also had a countryside residence. Being the owner of his own business, he had flexible working hours and could therefore devote a lot of time to his son. He had always paid child maintenance and his income permitted him to give the child a good education. There was a strong personal attachment between the applicant and his son; A. was also very attached to his paternal family – especially his cousin, who was of the same age. The applicant had positive character references: he was calm, polite and affectionate towards his son. By contrast, Ch. was aggressive and irresponsible. She had physically assaulted him in front of A. and had been criminally convicted in connection with that incident. She had also been convicted of the administrative offence of leaving the scene of a road accident and had had her driving licence suspended for a year. As could be seen from the documents submitted by the applicant to the court, she lived in a severely polluted and criminally unsafe neighbourhood in the vicinity of an oil refinery plant and a prison. Moreover, Ch. shared her flat with her mother, who smoked and abused alcohol and could therefore have a bad influence on A. Until recently, Ch. had prevented the applicant and his relatives from seeing A., and currently she allowed occasional contact only. 33. The applicant’s mother and sister stated that Ch. prevented them from seeing A. Ch. was often aggressive and occasionally abused alcohol. All her family smoked, even in the child’s presence. A. was very attached to his father and obviously suffered from their forced separation. 34. Ch. stated that the applicant would have no time to take care of the child as he was managing a business, was following a distance-learning course at a university and had earlier stated his intention of building a countryside residence. Ch. had a higher education and was working. The alleged defects in her character and behaviour to which the applicant had referred had been confirmed by his relatives only. 35. A teacher from A.’s current nursery school stated that she had seen the applicant once and that he had made a bad impression on her. On 30 April 2010 he had come to the nursery school and had told her that he wanted to take A. home with him. When she had refused to let him in, referring to the court order prohibiting any contact between them, he had become agitated and had talked about taking A. away with him when the children went out for a walk. 36. The director of the nursery school gave a similar description of the incident. She said that the applicant had become angry when he had learned of the court decision ordering the interim measure, had asked for a copy of that measure and had called his lawyer. 37. The following documents were submitted by the parties for the court’s examination: (i) the applicant’s and Ch.’s pay statements, (ii) documents showing that the district where Ch. lived was among the most polluted districts of Moscow, (iii) documents from the criminal case file against Ch., and (iv) documents relating to A.’s medical history and A.’s pre-school education both at the applicant’s place of residence prior to his parents’ separation and at the mother’s place of residence after the separation. 38. On 12 April 2011 the Timiryazevskiy District Court granted Ch.’s application for a residence order in her favour and dismissed a similar application by the applicant. It held as follows: “Having examined the entirety of the evidence, the court finds that there is a very serious conflict between the parties as regards the child’s residence arrangements, ... which has a negative impact on the child by creating a psychologically unhealthy and tense atmosphere around him. At the same time, each parent, taken alone, possesses moral, personal and other qualities rendering each of them capable of raising a small child. According to the expert report, the child is equally attached to both of them. It also follows from the expert report that the parents’ improper behaviour towards each other may have negative psychological consequences for the child. The court notes that [Ch.’s] criminal conviction for assaulting [the applicant] has not yet acquired binding force. It however takes into account the criminal charges brought against her. It is clear that the incident was prompted by the personal hostility [between the applicant and Ch.] caused by a disagreement on the issue of their son’s residence and education. In the court’s opinion, these charges cannot constitute a decisive reason for making a residence order in favour of the father. There is an accumulation of reasons on the basis of which the court considers that the child should live with the mother. In the present case the court is guided by the best interests of child [A.], who at the moment of the judgment has not yet reached the age of four years old and who has an established way of life. For a long time the child has lived with his mother at her place of residence and has attended a nursery school there. Given his age, a change of residence and a separation from the mother will have a negative impact on the child’s general and psychological state. The court considers that [the applicant’s] arguments that the district where [Ch.] lives is polluted and that close members of her family smoke cannot serve as a basis for making a residence order in favour of the father because, as mentioned above, a change of residence will have a negative impact on the child. [The applicant’s] arguments that he has better living conditions and a better financial situation than [Ch.] are not decisive for granting a residence order to the father either. The childcare authorities are unanimous that it is in [A.’s] interests to live with the mother. The court agrees with that finding. The court also finds that [the applicant’s] request for a residence order is at the moment premature. [The applicant] is entitled to apply for a reconsideration of the issue after A. has reached a more conscious age [по достижению сыном более сознательного возраста].” 39. The applicant appealed, repeating the arguments he had raised before the District Court. He relied, in particular, on the right to equality between spouses. 40. On 30 June 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 12 April 2011 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 41. On 6 December 2011 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow found it established that Ch. was preventing the applicant and his family –namely his mother, brother and sister – from seeing A. It held that A. was entitled to maintain contact with his father and his paternal family and determined the contact schedule as follows. The applicant should be able to have contact with A. (i) on the first and third weekend of each month from 10 a.m. on Saturday until 8 p.m. on Sunday at the applicant’s place of residence, in the mother’s absence and with the right to attend outdoor activities for children, and (ii) for two weeks during the summer and two weeks during the winter on dates agreed with the mother, provided that the child is in good health, with the right to leave Moscow and to go abroad. The applicant’s mother, brother and sister should be able to have contact sessions with A. from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. on the first and third Saturdays of each month at the applicant’s place of residence. 42. On an unspecified date the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment on appeal. 43. On 2 February 2012 the Mytischy Town Court upheld Ch.’s conviction for assault and battery on appeal.