Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was caught in the act of committing armed robbery . In the ensuing exchange of shots , he killed a police officer and wounded another . He was also injured in his spine , as a consequence of which he became paralysed in both his legs from the waist down . Ever since , he has also been suffering from incontinence . He is now PERCENT disabled , only capable of moving in a wheelchair ; moreover , he has to use diapers .

The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment . DATE and DATE he was detained in FAC .

The applicant described the conditions in FAC as follows : Since he was unable to fulfil the obligations incumbent on healthy inmates , he needed to sleep in his clothes in an undone bed and use his jacket as a blanket in order to avoid being sanctioned for violating the daily routine of making the bed on time . With no assistance from staff , he could wash or relieve himself only if his cellmates helped him do so . He was not provided with a proper bath chair ; instead , he was given a wooden toilet - seat which – unfit for the purposes of bathing – rotted away fast and on CARDINAL occasion , broke under him . Because of harassment from fellow inmates on account of his disability and incontinence , he did not participate in the DATE open - air stays . Classified as a ' Grade CARDINAL ' security - level prisoner , he was transported with his hands handcuffed to his belt at all times . While being transported in this posture in a van without a safety belt , he could keep himself in his wheelchair only by supporting his body by leaning his head against the door of the transport cabin . As a consequence , he regularly suffered swellings on his head . When entering or exiting the transport van , staff dragged him by his belt , sometimes on the floor causing him bruises ; an incident of this kind took place on DATE . On other occasions , his wheelchair – with the applicant , weighing QUANTITY , sitting in it – was rolled down the van 's steps .

The applicant 's complaint about the above conditions to the ORG Chief Public Prosecutor 's Office was to no avail .

According to the prison 's medical service , the applicant suffered inter alia from high blood pressure , overweight , paraplegia and a neurogenic bladder . His transfer to a specialised penitentiary was recommended but not taken up by the prison administration . Upon the applicant 's complaint , ORG investigated his situation . Its findings included the following :

“ The applicant 's cell is located on the ground floor ... , next to the medical consultancy room . It is suitable for accommodating CARDINAL inmates , but CARDINAL inmates , including the applicant , are actually placed in it . The furniture is refurbished and adjusted to the applicant 's health needs : the table is elevated , the beds are single rather than bunk beds , the wardrobe and the mirror are placed at a height reachable by the applicant , entrance obstacles have been removed and a handrail has been fitted next to the toilet . A cellmate has voluntarily undertaken the task of keeping the cell tidy and helping the applicant perform his everyday duties . The applicant has never been reproached for a violation of the prison cell order .

A hot water shower ( bath ) has been provided to the applicant on a DATE basis . A hand shower and a bath chair are available to him . ... A cellmate has voluntarily undertaken to help the applicant wash himself . ...

... In order to prevent harassment by fellow inmates , the applicant has been granted the opportunity to have DATE open - air stays in a [ protected ] courtyard ... The applicant , however , does not wish to make use of this possibility .

Upon the applicant 's complaints ... on CARDINAL DATE the warden ordered the transport van [ in question ] to be equipped with a safety belt and informed the applicant thereof ... as well as of the fact that , in the light of medical opinion , his transportation in an ambulance car ... was not justified . According to the findings of the investigation , the applicant suffered light scratches and bruises [ while in transport ] in DATE and DATE . Therefore the prison management instructed staff to proceed with special care in respect of the applicant . According to the opinion of the competent health organ , the applicant 's transport did not require the participation of medical staff .

On DATE the applicant requested to be transferred to ORG . His request was dismissed by ORG on DATE on the ground that he was serving his sentence in a penitentiary institution whose strictness was commensurate with the offence he had committed and with the regime imposed on him ; where his nursing and medical supervision was resolved and where physical obstacles had been removed in order to ensure his free movement in a wheelchair . The applicant filed a complaint against the decision . The complaint was dismissed by the ORG Commander on DATE and his transfer was not authorised . According to the reasoning of the decision , ' [ the applicant did ] not require permanent nursing or medical supervision . At his present place of detention , alterations had been made in the building , as required by his disability . Medical treatment , as appropriate in his present state , can be provided for him at his present place of detention , where the circumstances have been adjusted to his needs ... ' ”

The applicant submitted that the transport van was not equipped with a safety belt until DATE . Concerning open - air stays , he explained that the surface of the courtyard in question was uneven and therefore unsuitable for a wheelchair .

Given that other criminal proceedings were pending against him , the applicant had to be regularly transported to GPE to stand trial . In a complaint dated DATE and addressed to the head of ORG , the applicant submitted that on DATE , DATE he had been placed in an admission cell in which he had had to spend TIME with no access to water and without any possibility to change his diapers . He also submitted that during the transport he had been placed in a CARDINAL - person box of the van where he had suffered bruises : in a road curve , he had fallen out of his wheelchair and had been travelling on the floor of the van , handcuffed to his belt , with his arms under his body . He furthermore submitted that DATE , when he had requested a medical check - up , the nurse had informed him that no medical examination was available until the next weekly consultation to be held on DATE .

In the course of the ensuing investigation , on DATE a medical report was drawn up but no external sign of injury was detected . In the absence of evidence , on DATE the warden of ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint .

Upon the applicant 's criminal complaint , an investigation was opened by ORG against unknown persons for abuse of administrative authority , but was discontinued on CARDINAL DATE by ORG for want of evidence .

In a letter dated DATE and addressed to the ORG Commander , the applicant complained about injuries allegedly suffered during his transport and the malfunction of his wheelchair . The ensuing investigation did not support the applicant 's allegations about the injuries , but his wheelchair was subsequently repaired .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC where he was placed in a single cell specially designed for disabled inmates . On DATE he was examined by a forensic medical expert . In his opinion the expert stated :

“ ... [ In respect of standing up ] the inmate ... partly or wholly exaggerates his pains ... [ He is ] PERCENT disabled ... [ but is ] nevertheless , not totally unable to care for himself . His compulsive eating , together with his reluctance to accept painkillers ... , is a serious psychological obstacle to enhancing his mobility . At the same time ... the very existence of pain can not be proven beyond doubt . From a forensic medical point of view , it can be established that ... the inmate has received all the medical , nursing and caring help he needs . ”

Decree No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( VII.CARDINAL . ) of the Minister of Justice on the Rules of the Execution of Imprisonment and Pre - trial ORG provides as follows :

“ Such inmates shall be classified as ' Grade CARDINAL security ' prisoners as are expected with good reason to commit an act severely violating the order of the penitentiary , to escape or to endanger his / her own life or limb or that of others , or as have already committed such acts , and whose safe detention may only be guaranteed by guarding or DATE exceptionally – by surveillance . ”

The CPT 's Report to ORG after its visit to GPE from CARDINAL to DATE provides , insofar as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Under the prisoner grading system operated in GPE , remand or sentenced prisoners who are considered as dangerous are placed in Grade CARDINAL ( Decree No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( VII.CARDINAL . ) of the Minister of ORG ) . Allocation is made either by the prosecutor , the court or the reception committee of the establishment . The ORG was informed that courts and prosecutors tend to attribute this grade to prisoners accused or convicted of serious crimes ( especially persons involved in organised crime activities ) and the prison reception committees , to persons with a previous record of ill discipline ( including those prone to escape or those who have attempted suicide ) or with a military background .

The status of Grade CARDINAL prisoners is reviewed DATE . However , it would appear that the reasons underlying the decision for placement / prolongation of a Grade CARDINAL measure are not disclosed to the prisoner concerned .

It is axiomatic that a prisoner should not be held in a special security regime any longer than the risk which he presents makes necessary . This calls for regular reviews of the placement decision . Further , prisoners should as far as possible be kept fully informed of the reasons for their placement and , if necessary , its renewal ; this will inter alia enable them to make effective use of avenues for challenging that measure . ”

The CPT 's Report to ORG after its visit to GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE provides , insofar as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Concerning the legal safeguards applicable to prisoners placed in DATE , their status is now reviewed DATE ( at the time of the DATE visit , the frequency of reviews was DATE ) ; the ORG welcomes this change . However , the other long - standing recommendations of the CPT – concerning the provision to the inmates concerned of written information on the reasons for the measure and offering them an opportunity to express their views on DATE had not been implemented .

Many Grade CARDINAL prisoners interviewed by the delegation complained that they had not been informed of the reasons for the measure , had had no involvement in the review procedure and had received no information on the possibilities to contest it . Further , it was generally felt that the periodic review of the Grade CARDINAL status was a pure formality . The examination of relevant documentation and interviews with inmates led the delegation to conclude that the determining factors in retaining the Grade CARDINAL status were historical ones , like the violent nature of the crime committed ( often many years before ) , rather than an assessment of the inmate 's current dangerousness or propensity to act again in an unacceptable way . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . During the DATE visit , close attention was given to the situation of prisoners placed under a special security regime . The ORG has welcomed the fact that the status of prisoners classified as LAW is now reviewed DATE ; at the same time , it has called upon the NORP authorities to implement its previous recommendations concerning the provision to such prisoners of written information on the reasons for the measure as well as the opportunity to express their views on the matter . More generally , the ORG has recommended that the system of classifying prisoners as Grade CARDINAL be reviewed and refined , with a view to ensuring that this grade is only applied – and retained – vis - à - vis prisoners who genuinely require to be accorded such a status .

The policy as regards the application of means of restraint to Grade CARDINAL prisoners - already strongly criticised in the past by the ORG - remains unsatisfactory ; the ORG has called upon the NORP authorities to review that policy without further delay . ... ”


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of ORG , LOC .

NORP In DATE the applicant married Mr O.A.

In the applicant ’s submission , after the registration of the marriage her husband told her that his father , Mr PERSON , was an influential person in the criminal world . She also submits that her husband has informal connections with police officers .

On DATE the applicant gave birth to a son , M.

NORP In DATE marital tensions began to develop between the couple .

On DATE Mr O.A. threw the applicant out of their family home without M. He said that he would take PERSON to GPE and would not allow the applicant to contact the boy .

NORP The applicant kept calling her son on the phone , but her husband ’s family did not allow her to speak to PERSON Her attempts to visit her son were futile .

On DATE the applicant instituted divorce proceedings before the Moscow ORG ( “ the district court ” ) . She also requested the court to make an order concerning the child ’s place of residence and to restrict Mr O.A. ’s parental rights ( “ to remove a child from a parent ” within the meaning of LAW ) .

On DATE Mr O.A. and PERSON officially registered their place of residence as being at the LOC residence . In the applicant ’s submission , Mr O.A. did not ask for her consent when changing PERSON ’s place of residence .

In DATE the applicant saw her son for the first time since her separation from her husband for TIME in the presence of ORG , his mother and sister , as well as officials of child welfare authorities .

CARDINAL different district child welfare authorities examined the applicant ’s and Mr O.A. ’s respective places of residence . ORG ( “ the ORG child welfare authority ” ) delivered a report stating that it was in the best interests of the child to stay with the applicant , while ORG ( “ the PERSON child welfare authority ” ) decided that it was best for PERSON to live with his father , who had good living conditions and was prosperous .

On DATE the district court dissolved the applicant ’s marriage . It further found that the best interests of PERSON required that he reside with his mother . The judgment read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ Having assessed all [ the available ] evidence as a whole , the court sees no reason to order that the child ’s place of residence be with his father after the dissolution of the marriage , since it has not been proven that his mother has acted in breach of the child ’s best interests . For a lengthy period of time the child has been living with the defendant without his mother ’s consent . The defendant has not taken any real steps to reunite the family after the institution of court proceedings and has not provided the claimant with an opportunity to see the child .

... The court disagrees with the conclusions of the ORG child welfare authority , as they are based exclusively on the fact that the defendant has certain assets ... The defendant did not deny that he had kept the child at his place [ of residence against the claimant ’s will ] , which was not taken into account by the [ ORG ] child welfare authority when drafting the conclusions .

The child was born in DATE ... Taking into account the his mother to bring him up , [ and ] the conclusions of the ORG child welfare authority , the court considers it appropriate , while dissolving the parties’ marriage , to order that the child live with his mother , while ensuring his father ’s rights as a separately - residing parent .

The court has thus decided to dissolve the marriage ... The child ... should continue residing with [ the applicant ] . ”

Mr O.A. later asked the police to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant , claiming that she had hired a hitman to kill him . On DATE the authorities dismissed the request and refused to open a criminal investigation against the applicant .

Mr O.A. sent letters to child welfare authorities claiming that the applicant was trying to kill him . At some point he alleged that he had been beaten up on the street by persons hired by the applicant . Criminal proceedings instituted in this respect were suspended owing to the authorities’ inability to identify those responsible .

At some point the ORG child welfare authority changed its view and produced another report stating that PERSON should live with his mother .

On an unspecified date Mr O.A. appealed against the district court judgment and sought the withdrawal of the applicant ’s parental rights because she had allegedly organised an attempt on his life .

On DATE ORG ( “ the city court ” ) quashed the district court judgment of DATE in part as regards the child ’s place of residence for the reason that the CARDINAL child care authorities had issued conflicting reports and remitted the case for fresh examination at first instance .

On DATE the district court again decided that PERSON should reside with his mother . The judgment read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The representative of the ORG child welfare authority ... considers it appropriate [ for the court ] to order that the child ’s place of residence should be with his mother , but does not support [ the applicant ’s ] claim to have the child removed [ from his father ] and considers it unsubstantiated .

The representative of the ORG child welfare authority supports [ the applicant ’s ] claims and considers it necessary to order that the child live with his mother , having removed him from his father .

... The court grants the claims in part ...

Under LAW of GPE a court ... may decide to remove a child from [ his or her ] parents ( or CARDINAL of them ) without a withdrawal of parental rights . [ Such a ] restriction of parental rights is permissible where it is dangerous for a child to stay with [ his or her ] parents ( or a parent ) because of circumstances out of the parent(s ) control , such as a mental illness or other disease or distressing circumstances .

The ORG and ORG child welfare authorities established that ... [ the applicant ] ’s room was equipped with everything necessary for the child ...

The court has established that the defendant has impeded the claimant ’s contact with the child , has breached the child ’s rights to know who his mother is and to be brought up by his mother and has thus breached Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of LAW , while under the law in force he as a parent is obliged to protect the child ’s rights and interests ... and not to breach the claimant ’s rights concerning the child .

Taking into account all the circumstances as a whole , the court finds no reason to order that the child ’s place of residence be with his father , because it has been proven that his father has been violating the child ’s rights and those of the claimant . For a lengthy period the child has been living with his father without the claimant ’s consent , the defendant has impeded the child ’s contacts with his mother . The defendant has not ensured that the claimant could stay in full contact with the child , [ and ] has not ensured the child ’s right to be brought up by his mother ...

Taking into account all the his mother to bring him up , [ and ] the conclusions of the child welfare authorities , the court considers it appropriate to order that the child live with his mother , while ensuring the father ’s rights as a separately - residing parent . The claim to remove the child from his father is not granted [ on that basis that it is ] unsubstantiated , since the plaintiff has not shown , as required by LAW , that [ the defendant ] suffers from a mental or other illness or is in distressing circumstances .

The court has decided to order that PERSON , born in DATE , reside with his mother , [ the applicant ] .

The remainder of the claims is dismissed . ”

Mr O.A. appealed against the judgment .

On DATE the city court upheld on appeal the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which became final .

On DATE the applicant was issued a writ of execution on the basis of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE stating that the child should reside with his mother . The writ was issued on a form which was no longer in use after DATE .

The applicant sent the writ to the circuit bailiffs’ office . On CARDINAL DATE the bailiffs’ service for ORG of GPE ( “ the circuit bailiffs’ office ” ) delivered a decision refusing to institute enforcement proceedings because the writ was issued on an old form . They sent the decision to the applicant by post . She received it on DATE .

It appears that on a number of occasions the applicant visited the circuit bailiffs’ office LOC in person .

On DATE , during one of those visits , bailiffs showed the applicant their office ’s undated decision not to commence the enforcement proceedings but refused to officially serve it on the applicant , claiming that she would receive it by post .

The circuit bailiffs’ office did not return the writ of execution issued on the old form to the applicant , thus precluding her from immediately applying to the district court for a writ in the new form .

On DATE and DATE the applicant requested the district court to issue a writ of execution in the new form .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative requested the district court to order the immediate enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

In DATE a deputy head of the circuit bailiffs’ office notified the applicant in writing that their decision of DATE had been unfounded .

On DATE the district court issued a new writ of execution and the applicant received it on an unspecified date upon her request .

The applicant complained to a prosecutor ’s office about the failure to institute enforcement proceedings . On DATE the prosecutor ’s office for ORG of GPE dismissed her complaint , stating that a decision making an order in respect of a child ’s place of residence was of a factual nature and could not be enforced under LAW DATE .

Nevertheless , on DATE the circuit bailiffs’ office instituted enforcement proceedings but delivered a decision to postpone the use of enforcement measures for the reason that the manner in which the judgment required to be executed was not clear . For this reason , on DATE the circuit bailiffs’ office requested the district court to clarify the requirements of the writ of execution and to specify the manner in which it should be enforced .

While awaiting the district court ’s decision , the circuit bailiffs’ office postponed the use of enforcement measures because the writ of execution was unclear on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG issued LAW , upon his father ’s request , with a passport enabling him to leave the territory of GPE .

On DATE the district court dismissed the circuit bailiffs’ office ’s request for clarification stating that , when performing his duties , a bailiff should use all powers provided for by law .

On DATE the circuit bailiffs’ office sent an official summons to ORG address and also sent him an order to immediately comply with the judgment of DATE as upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE . Furthermore , on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE bailiffs from the circuit bailiffs’ office visited Mr O.A. ’s place of residence indicated in the writ of execution on FAC in GPE ( “ the PERSON flat ” ) . Mr PERSON was absent on all QUANTITY occasions . The bailiffs established that Mr O.A. resided at the address in question and that PERSON was absent .

On DATE the circuit bailiffs’ office received a request for termination of the enforcement proceedings from ORG for the reason that PERSON had moved from GPE to the village of GPE , in LOC of LOC .

On DATE ORG representative was served with an order requiring ORG to comply with the court judgment . The representative explained that PERSON resided together with his son PERSON in the village of GPE . The representative asked the circuit bailiffs’ office to terminate the enforcement proceedings for the reason that Mr O.A. had moved away from GPE , which resulted in a delay in the execution of the judgment .

On DATE the circuit bailiffs’ office asked the bailiffs’ service for LOC of LOC ( “ the PERSON bailiffs’ office ” ) to visit Mr O.A. at the LOC residence . A bailiff from that office visited the LOC residence on DATE . Nobody was home but the bailiff established that both PERSON and PERSON resided there .

On DATE and DATE the applicant notified the police that her son had been kidnapped .

On DATE a bailiff from the PERSON bailiffs’ office again visited the LOC residence . Nobody was home but the bailiff established that Mr O.A. resided there and PERSON was absent . On DATE , however , police officers paid a visit to ORG house in DATE . Both Mr O.A. and PERSON were there . PERSON ’s identity was confirmed by his passport , which Mr O.A. presented to the police . A police officer talked to PERSON in the presence of ORG adult family members . No further action was taken .

Towards DATE the applicant visited ORG of the Interior . Officers P. and PERSON told her that they had gone to GPE on DATE and had seen her son . They produced a picture of a boy . The applicant did not recognise her son in that picture .

On DATE a bailiff from the circuit bailiffs’ office visited Mr O.A. ’s flat at FAC in GPE . Nobody opened the door at first . Mr O.A. later appeared and told the bailiff that PERSON was absent from the flat . He refused to receive a copy of the decision ordering the commencement of enforcement proceedings and requiring him to comply with the judgment .

On DATE an investigator from ORG of ORG ( “ the investigator ” ) visited the village of LOC . He met PERSON , his father , as well as PERSON ’s aunt , uncle and cousin near a café not far from the Nikitskoe residence . The investigator talked to PERSON and his minor cousin in the presence of the adults . PERSON said that he lived with his father and the latter ’s wife and that he did not want to live with his mother . The investigator made a video of PERSON and his minor cousin .

DATE . On DATE the police unit in charge of cases involving minors paid a visit to the LOC residence and issued a certificate upon its examination confirming that PERSON and his son PERSON lived in good conditions . The following day the Ramenskoe Town Prosecutor ’s Office notified the applicant of the following . PERSON , his wife , parents and PERSON were residing in GPE in a CARDINAL - room house . PERSON did not go to kindergarten but was receiving DATE private lessons from a teacher hired by ORG In the event of PERSON having medical problems Mr O.A. personally took him to a GPE hospital . Mr O.A. performed his parental duties in full and the child had a separate bedroom . PERSON resided in ORG house in DATE on a permanent basis .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigator issued a decision not to institute a criminal investigation into the alleged kidnapping for lack of a criminal event , because the child lived with his father .

On DATE the circuit bailiffs’ office issued a decision to search for the applicant ’s son which was forwarded to the police on DATE .

On DATE the applicant and a journalist went to Nikitskoe and saw Mr PERSON and PERSON ’s cousin . Mr PERSON told the applicant that her son was not in the village . On DATE the police established that PERSON resided at the LOC residence confirmed by a photo of a police officer together with PERSON and his cousin . On DATE the police communicated this information to the circuit bailiffs’ office .

The decision of CARDINAL DATE not to institute criminal proceedings into the kidnapping was quashed on DATE by ORG of ORG . On DATE a new decision not to open an investigation into PERSON ’s kidnapping was taken but this decision was also quashed .

On DATE Mr O.A. came to the Ramenskoe Town Prosecutor ’s Office to give “ explanations ” concerning his son .

On DATE a bailiff from the PERSON bailiffs’ office again visited the LOC residence . Nobody was home . The bailiff established that Mr O.A. resided there and PERSON was absent .

On DATE the Ramenskoe bailiffs’ office took over the case , having received the writ of execution , and opened enforcement proceedings .

On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE bailiffs from the PERSON bailiffs’ office visited the LOC residence . Nobody was home on these dates .

On DATE ORG ( “ the child welfare authority ” ) paid a visit to the LOC residence and established that LOC lived there with his father .

On DATE the investigator together with a bailiff from the PERSON bailiffs’ office , a representative of the child welfare authority , the applicant and her mother came to the LOC residence . Nobody was home . The investigator questioned the neighbours , who confirmed that Mr. PERSON ’s family lived there most of the time . The authorities established that ORG might reside at CARDINAL other GPE addresses .

On DATE the investigator visited CARDINAL flats in GPE : CARDINAL at TIME , and another one at FAC . It was established that Mr O.A. ’s brother lived at FAC , while Mr O.A. ’s sister resided at FAC . Both explained that Mr O.A. lived at the LOC residence .

On DATE the investigator again decided not to open a criminal case concerning the allegation of kidnapping .

On DATE the PERSON bailiffs ’s office summoned PERSON O.A. to their LOC on DATE . Mr O.A. failed to appear .

On DATE the applicant complained to the district court about the investigator ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE not to open criminal proceedings . The complaint was returned to the applicant in order for her to eliminate defects in the document .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE bailiffs from the PERSON bailiffs’ office , accompanied on some occasions by the police and the applicant , visited the LOC residence . Nobody was home .

On DATE the PERSON bailiffs’ office ordered a temporarily limit on ORG freedom to leave GPE and forwarded the order to the border control service . On DATE the PERSON bailiffs’ office decided to search for the child and forwarded a decision in that regard to the police . They repeated their request on DATE .

On DATE a bailiff from the PERSON bailiffs’ office imposed a fine of MONEY ( MONEY ) on ORG for a continuing failure to comply with the requirements of the writ of execution .

On DATE the district court dismissed the applicant ’s complaint about the ORG refusal of CARDINAL DATE to institute criminal proceedings in connection with her son ’s kidnapping .

DATE . On DATE , DATE and DATE bailiffs from the PERSON bailiffs’ office visited the LOC residence . Nobody was home . They also asked the police to send a police officer on a DATE basis to the LOC residence in order to check whether PERSON and PERSON resided there .

On DATE the applicant lodged another complaint with the district court about the investigator ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the complaint was dismissed . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision at final instance .

It appears that on an unspecified date the ORG district department of the interior decided to resume the investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of kidnapping . In the course of this investigation , on CARDINAL DATE an official from the unit in charge of cases involving minors questioned PERSON in the presence of his father . PERSON ’s identity was confirmed by his passport . PERSON told the official that he wanted to live with his father .

On DATE it was decided once more not to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged kidnapping . The applicant did not challenge the decision .

On an unspecified date the transport police informed the PERSON bailiffs’ office that Mr O.A. had purchased a plane ticket to GPE for DATE . On DATE bailiffs came to the airport to question Mr. O.A. but he was not among the passengers boarding the plane . On the same date the bailiffs went to the LOC residence but Mr GPE and PERSON were not there .

On DATE the ORG opened a file concerning the search for PERSON and put him on the federal search list .

On DATE the PERSON bailiffs’ office requested the district court to clarify the manner in which the execution of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE should be carried out . On DATE the district court issued a clarification concerning the execution of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , stating that ORG was under an obligation to take PERSON to the applicant ’s place of residence .

On DATE the bailiffs suspended the execution proceedings in the absence of Mr O.A. and M.

DATE . On DATE the police visited the LOC residence . Mr GPE and PERSON were absent . Mr O.A. ’s father explained that they were in the PERSON flat .

On DATE Mr O.A. talked to a prosecutor on the phone and stated that he and his family were on vacation until DATE and refused to give the particulars of PERSON ’s whereabouts .

According to the Government ’s submissions of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON ’s whereabouts remained unknown to that date .

According to the information provided by the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , the judgment of DATE remains unenforced to that date and PERSON continues to live with his father . The applicant submitted that she had not seen her son for DATE .

Both parents have equal parental rights ( LAW ) . Parents have a right and an obligation to bring up their children . The GPE right to bring up their children has precedence over such a right of any other person ( LAW ) . A child ’s place of residence in case of separation of the parents should be established by an agreement between the parents . If the parents disagree on a child ’s place of residence , the dispute should be resolved by a court , taking into account the child ’s best interests and their opinion . The court should consider how attached a child is to each parent , his or her age , the moral qualities of the parents , their material welfare , family status , and so forth ( LAW ) . A parent residing separately from his or her child has a right to contact him or her and to participate in his or her upbringing ( LAW ) . A court may restrict parental rights ( “ to remove the child from the parent ” ) if a parent could be dangerous to his or her child because of circumstances out of their control ( a mental or other illness , distressing circumstances ) or where their behaviour is dangerous for the child but not to the extent necessary to warrant withdrawal of parental rights ( LAW ) .

A bailiff must issue a decision to open enforcement proceedings or to refuse to do so within DATE of receipt of a writ of execution ( Article CARDINAL ) . The creditor , the debtor and the bailiff can ask the court which issued the writ of execution to clarify its provisions and the manner of its enforcement ( LAW ) . If the debtor fails to fulfil the obligations contained in the writ of execution within the time - limit established for doing so voluntarily , the bailiff shall recover an execution fee from the debtor and set up a new time - limit for the execution of those obligations ( LAW ) . If the debtor does not fulfil the obligations within the newly established time - limit , the bailiff shall impose a fine on the debtor ( LAW ) . The court must examine complaints about the decisions , actions or inaction of bailiffs within a DATE time - limit ( LAW ) .