6.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1948 respectively. The first applicant died on 29 August 2018. The second applicant lives in St Petersburg.
7.  The applicants were former spouses. They divorced in 1988, but continued to live together in the same apartment.
8.  The applicants’ daughter, O., married K.O.V.-S., a national of Finland. The couple settled in Finland.
9.  On 28 September 2006 O. gave birth to a daughter, M.
10.  In May 2008 O. and M. moved in with the applicants in Russia.
11.  On 3 April 2011 O. died of a serious illness. M. remained living with the applicants.
12.  According to the Government, during O.’s illness the applicants’ relatives Mr and Ms Z. started to help the applicants with the upbringing of M.: they took the girl to their place of residence on weekends and holidays, and attended events in her kindergarten.
13.  On 16 May 2011 the second applicant was appointed M.’s guardian with the written consent of the first applicant.
14.  On 24 October 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the second applicant’s application and deprived K.O.V.-S. of his parental rights over M.
15.  According to the Government, after the death of O., a protracted family dispute arose between the applicants. The first applicant was dissatisfied with the way the second applicant fulfilled his duties as M.’s guardian and insisted that their son, N.B., should take on those obligations. Furthermore, there was a disagreement as to whether M. should start school in September 2013.
16.  When the question of M.’s schooling arose Mr and Ms Z. decided to apply to adopt the girl. The applicants at that stage supported their decision.
17.  From February to April 2013 Mr and Ms Z. underwent training courses for individuals wishing to adopt a child left without parental care.
18.  On 29 May and 13 June 2013 respectively the Kronverkskoye municipal entity issued positive decisions on Mr and Ms Z.’s suitability to become adoptive parents.
19.  On 19 June 2013 the head of the Krasnenkaya Rechka municipal entity received a written statement from the second applicant to the effect that he did not object to the adoption of M. by Mr and Ms Z.
20.  According to the Government, when the first applicant found out that the second applicant had agreed to the adoption of their granddaughter, she started to set the child against Mr and Ms Z. and to interfere with their communication. She further tried, in vain, to deprive the second applicant of his guardianship of M. and have N.B. appointed as the child’s guardian.
21.  In connection with this situation, in the beginning of July 2013 Ms Z., with the consent of the second applicant, lodged an application seeking to be appointed as M.’s second guardian.
22.  On 2 July 2013 the head of the Krasnenkaya Rechka municipal entity took a decision to appoint Ms Z. as M.’s second guardian. The child’s place of residence was determined as being with Ms Z.
23.  On 4 July 2013 M. moved in with Mr and Ms Z.
24.  From that moment on the first applicant began to lodge applications with the childcare authorities alleging that Ms Z. prevented her communicating with the child.
25.  On 26 September 2013 a meeting was held between the parties on the subject of the first applicant’s and N.B.’s communication with the child with the participation of the Krasnenkaya Rechka municipal entity, the childcare authorities, the Children’s Rights Commissioner in St Petersburg, the prosecutor’s assistant of the district prosecutor’s office, an expert specialising in conflict resolution and a psychologist of the District Centre for Social Assistance to the Family and Children. An oral agreement was reached between Ms Z. and the first applicant to the effect that the latter’s meetings with the child were to take place on 5 October and 12 October 2013 for two hours in the presence of Ms Z. On 1 November 2013 Ms Z. and the first applicant were to come to the office of the Children’s Rights Commissioner for a debriefing on the meetings.
26.  On 9 December 2013 the first applicant informed the childcare authorities that none of the meetings had taken place.
27.  While the first applicant did not have any contact with the child after that, the second applicant continued communicating with M. until November 2014. Subsequently Mr and Ms Z. prevented the second applicant from staying in touch with M.
28.  Meanwhile, on 13 November 2013 Mr and Ms Z. lodged an adoption application with the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”).
29.  On 25 November 2013 the second applicant submitted to the deputy head of the local administration of the municipal entity Krasnenkaya Rechka his agreement to M.’s adoption by Mr and Ms Z. He expressed his wish for the adoption case to be heard in his absence.
30.  On 26 November 2013 the District Court granted the application by Mr and Ms Z. to adopt M. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 7 December 2013.
31.  In 2015 the applicants, acting separately, applied for restoration of the procedural time-limit for appeal against the adoption judgment of 26 November 2013 seeking to challenge it on account of, inter alia, their loss of post-adoption contact with their granddaughter, which ran contrary to the child’s interests.
32.  On 11 February 2015 the second applicant applied to the District Court to have the procedural time-limit for lodging his appeal against the adoption judgment of 26 November 2013 restored.
33.  On 16 March 2015 the District Court granted the second applicant’s application.
34.  On 13 May 2015 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) upheld the judgment of 26 November 2013 on the second applicant’s appeal. The City Court dismissed the second applicant’s argument to the effect that the child’s close relatives had been unaware of the adoption proceedings. It noted that the second applicant had known about the proceedings, had not raised any objections to the adoption and had asked to have the case examined in his absence. The City Court further held that notification, let alone involvement in the proceedings, of the child’s other relatives (grandmother and uncle), was not required by law. As regards the second applicant’s argument to the effect that the child’s adoption had led to the termination of all contact between her and the grandparents, the City Court stated, relying on Article 67 §§ 1 and 2 of the Family Code, that the grandfather, grandmother, brothers, sisters and other relatives have a right to contact with the child and that in the event of a refusal by the child’s parents to afford them such contact, they are entitled to apply to a court to have the obstacles to their contact with the child eliminated.
35.  On 21 August 2015 the City Court and on 22 December 2015 the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”), following a prior application for review of the final judgment, decided not to refer the case for review in the cassation procedure.
36.  Meanwhile, on 28 May 2015 the first applicant applied to the District Court to have the procedural time-limit for lodging her appeal against the adoption judgment of 26 November 2013 restored. Relying on Article 137 of the Family Code she argued that by failing to involve her in the adoption proceedings the domestic court had ruptured her family ties with her granddaughter.
37.  However, on 14 July 2015 the District Court dismissed her application. The District Court held that the first applicant had not been a party to the proceedings resulting in the judgment of 26 November 2013, that the above judgment had had no bearing on her rights and obligations, and therefore she had had no standing to appeal against it. The District Court further held that the first applicant misinterpreted Article 137 of the Family Code. It did not follow from the provisions of Article 137 that the first applicant’s family ties with her granddaughter would be ruptured. Relying of Article 67 of the Family Code, the District Court considered that it was open to the first applicant to apply to a court for the determination of her contact with the child.
38.  On 10 September 2015 the City Court upheld the above decision on appeal.
39.  On 11 December 2015 the City Court and on 29 January 2016 the Supreme Court decided not to refer the above decisions for review in the cassation procedure.
40.  On 3 March 2014 the first applicant instituted court proceedings against Mr and Ms Z. seeking to oblige them not to thwart her contact with her granddaughter M. and to have determined the contact schedule with the latter.
41.  On 18 April 2014 the administration of the municipal entity Krasnenkaya Rechka submitted that the girl needed a calm psychological atmosphere; that she perceived the situation around her as tense and anxious; and that she did not understand the conflict between the applicants themselves and between the first applicant and the girl’s adoptive parents.
42.  On 16 October 2014 in her conversation with a psychologist M. submitted that the applicants “had never been friends”, that they often swore, even in her presence; and that she was not frightened when they swore because she was used to it.
43.  On 21 January 2015 an expert of the Istina Independent Expert Organisation gave her opinion that the child considered and called Mr and Ms Z. her parents. She had close emotional bonds with them. Despite the absence of contact, the girl remembered and loved her grandmother. This was explained by the fact that the adoptive parents, although preventing their communication, were not exercising psychological pressure on the girl and were not denigrating the grandmother. The expert considered, however, that communication between the child and the grandmother could have a negative impact on the psychological state of the child, as there was an unsettled conflict between the applicants and the Z.s: the grandmother disapproved of the child’s adoption and was challenging its lawfulness. The expert further considered that the child’s residence with the grandparents would not be ideal, because, given the instability of interfamilial relations and the protracted conflict in the applicants’ family, there existed a risk of the child’s being involved in the adults’ conflict. However, since the girl retained the positive image of her grandmother and expressed her wish to communicate with her, it was possible to establish a contact arrangement, which would provide for an obligatory preparatory stage, including reconciliation between the relatives.
44.  On 10 February 2015 the Pushkinskiy District Court of St Petersburg established, on the basis of the relevant reports and expert examinations, that M. still had a positive image of the first applicant and had expressed a wish to have contact with her, and that it was therefore possible to establish a contact schedule between them. The Pushkinskiy District Court therefore ordered Mr and Ms Z. not to place obstacles in the way of the first applicant’s communication with M. and held that contact between the first applicant and M. should take place as follows: during the first six months after the finalisation of the judgment – each second and fourth Sunday of the month from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. outside the parents’ and the grandparents’ places of residence in the presence of the parents, and thereafter on the same conditions without the parents present. A year after the finalisation of the judgment the first applicant was able, in addition to the above arrangements, to spend two weeks with M. during the summer holidays with sixty days’ prior notice to the parents of the place of the planned holiday. Mr and Ms Z. appealed.
45.  Following an appeal by Mr and Ms Z., on 17 September 2015 the City Court quashed the above judgment on appeal and discontinued the proceedings. The City Court held that the District Court had committed substantial violations of material and procedural law which resulted in wrongful conclusions. Relying on Articles 137 §§ 4 and 5 of the Family Code and clause 18 of the ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court no. 8 of 20 April 2006 (see paragraphs 54, 55 and 68 below), the City Court held that the first applicant had not applied for continued post-adoption contact with her granddaughter within the adoption proceedings, for which reason this issue had remained unexamined by [the District Court examining the adoption case] and no reference had been made in the adoption judgment regarding continuation of family ties between the first applicant and her granddaughter after her adoption. In such circumstances, the City Court considered that civil and family law did not enable the first applicant to claim the elimination of obstacles to her contact with the child and determination of the terms of such contact with the latter.
46.  On 7 December 2015 the City Court and on 29 February 2016 the Supreme Court, following a prior application for review of the final judgment, decided not to refer the decision of 17 September 2015 for review in the cassation procedure.
47.  On an unspecified date in 2015 the second applicant instituted court proceedings against Mr and Ms Z., seeking to oblige them not to thwart his contact with his granddaughter M. and to have the contact schedule with the latter determined pursuant to Article 67 of the Family Code.
48.  On 1 December 2015 the District Court held that since the adoption judgment of 26 November 2013 did not contain an indication as to the continuation of family ties between the second applicant and his granddaughter after the adoption, the former did not have a right to claim the elimination of obstacles to contact with the child and determination of the terms of his contact with his granddaughter. Consequently, the District Court discontinued the proceedings.
49.  On 2 March 2016 the City Court upheld the above decision on appeal.