The European Court of Human Rights was recently called upon to decide whether there had been breaches of human rights in two different sets of proceedings for child residence orders, both originating in Russia. It has now given its judgments, finding a violation in one case but not in the other.
In Leonov v. Russia, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and, by the same margin, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8.
However, in Magomadova v. Russia, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and rejected a complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The cases concerned the applicants’ legal efforts to have their children live with them.
Neither Sergey Leonov, the applicant in the first case, nor Elita Magomadova, the applicant in the second case, succeeded in their cases at the domestic level. They both alleged that the domestic courts had violated their rights under the Convention.
The Court found that Mr Leonov had been able to present his case fully to the domestic courts and that the reasons given for the decision not to order that his child live with him had been relevant and sufficient. It was not convinced by his argument that the judge in his case had been biased towards believing that small children should always be raised by their mothers. It therefore found no violation of his rights under the Convention.
That had not been the case for Ms Magomadova. The courts’ examination had not been thorough enough to establish the best interests of the child. Overall, there had been a violation of her rights under Article 8. She eventually obtained custody of the child after the father died in a car accident.
For a confidential discussion about your case with one of our expert family lawyers, please contact us here or call us on 0141 413 5451.