5.  The first applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Washington DC, the United States of America (hereafter “the USA”). X, the second applicant, was born in 1998 and lives in Moscow.
6.  The applicants are father and daughter. The first applicant lodged the application on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter, who was underage at the material time.
7.  Until 2008 the first applicant had been living in Moscow together with his wife E. and their daughter, X.
8.  In June 2008 the family moved to the USA. X started to attend school there.
9.  On 2 December 2008 X moved to Tashkent, Uzbekistan, to live with her maternal grandparents temporarily, as her mother had become seriously ill.
10.  On 26 December 2008 E. died of cancer in the USA.
11.  On 4 January 2009 the first applicant went to Tashkent for E.’s funeral. He then returned to the USA to deal with the necessary formalities, temporarily leaving X in Tashkent with her maternal grandparents, B. and S., because her state of health after her mother’s death prevented her from travelling. An agreement was concluded between the first applicant and his parents-in-law that they would take X to Moscow as soon as he returned there from the USA.
12.  The first applicant returned to Moscow in March 2009. However, B. and S. refused to take X to Moscow.
13.  During the following months the first applicant applied to the Russian Consulate in Uzbekistan, to the Russian Embassy in Uzbekistan and to the Russian Ministry of International Affairs for assistance in recovering his daughter.
14.  By letter of 29 September 2009, the Ministry of International Affairs informed the first applicant that on 18 September 2009 officials from the Russian Consulate in Uzbekistan had visited B., S. and X in their home in Tashkent. They had found that X’s living conditions were excellent. She had a separate room with all necessary facilities, including a personal computer with access to the Internet. She attended a local school and numerous extracurricular activities and was an exemplary pupil. B. had told the officials that the first applicant had not visited his daughter. B. had been worried that if X returned to the first applicant, she would not be taken good care of. He had also considered that it would not be in X’s best interests to move to the USA. She would be better off living in Tashkent where her mother was buried and where most of her family and friends lived. X had told the officials that she missed her father and could not understand why he had not visited her for so long. The officials had concluded that there were no obstacles preventing the first applicant from visiting his daughter in Tashkent and eventually taking her away with him.
15.  On 9 October 2009 the Uzbek childcare authority visited X. The officials found that X’s living conditions were good. X told them that she missed her father but preferred to live with her grandparents.
16.  On 9 January 2010 the first applicant arrived in Tashkent. He went to X’s school where he was able to talk to her. B. and S., however, prevented him from visiting X again or taking her away with him.
17.  On 19 July 2010 the Tashkent childcare authority visited X and found that her living conditions were comfortable and that she was taken good care of by her grandparents. She attended school and extracurricular activities.
18.  In July 2010 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office of the Khamzinskiy District of Tashkent that B. and S. were unlawfully retaining his daughter. By letter of 20 July 2010, the prosecutor’s office replied that he was free to take his daughter away at any time. If B. and S. prevented him, he should apply to an Uzbek court.
19.  On 1 September 2010 the first applicant applied to the Cheremushinskiy District Court of Moscow, seeking X’s return to him. He submitted that his parents-in-law were unlawfully retaining his daughter against his will. They were preventing him from seeing X and from contacting her by telephone or via the Internet. He also submitted that there was a strong attachment between him and X and that X was suffering as a result of being separated from her father.
20.  The Cheremushinskiy District Court registered the case on 3 September 2010 and invited the parties for a talk on 27 September 2010.
21.  On 27 September 2010 the Cheremushinskiy District Court asked the childcare authority to prepare an opinion on the case and scheduled the first hearing for 19 October 2010.
22.  The hearing of 19 October 2010 was adjourned until 19 November 2010 at the first applicant’s request.
23.  On 21 October 2010 the Moscow childcare authority visited the first applicant’s flat in Moscow and found it comfortable. They also questioned his uncle, who stated that the first applicant lived and worked in the USA. He had a comfortable income and a spacious flat. He had bought medical insurance for X and had enrolled her in the best school in the area where he lived. He also stated that B. and S. had been preventing the first applicant from contacting X, in particular by cutting off her telephone and Internet access.
24.  On 13 November 2010 the Moscow childcare authority visited a flat belonging to B. in Moscow and found it comfortable. On the same day the Moscow childcare authority questioned B.’s representative, who stated that the first applicant lived in the USA, often travelled for work and could not therefore take care of his daughter. He did not support her financially and did not visit her. B.’s representative also conceded that B. was preventing the first applicant from contacting his daughter.
25.  Hearings were held on 19 November and 15 December 2010. The first applicant reiterated the arguments set out in his complaint of 1 September 2010. He also stated that he permanently lived and worked in the USA, had a stable income and could provide his daughter with everything she needed. He complained that S. and B. were not only preventing him from contacting X, but were also exercising influence on her in order to set her against him. He also submitted the following documents from the USA: X’s school records; X’s and his own character references from the neighbours, X’s teachers and the parents of her school friends; certificates from his employer confirming his income and health insurance covering himself and his daughter, and stating that his post was based in Washington, DC, and did not require frequent travel; an opinion by the doctor who had treated X’s mother that, in view of an increased hereditary risk of cancer, X needed regular medical supervision in a specialised clinic; and a description of the first applicant’s flat in Washington, DC, by a real‑estate agent.
26.  B. and S. stated that they were worried that the first applicant would not have sufficient time to take care of X because he had to travel a lot for work. They were taking good care of their granddaughter and supported her financially because her father did not pay any child maintenance. X had been born in Tashkent, attended school there and had many friends. Neither her father nor her paternal grandparents, who also lived in Tashkent, visited X or showed any interest in her life. X’s return to her father against her will would traumatise her. They submitted affidavits by X’s teachers that when the first applicant had visited X at school in January 2010, the girl had been frightened and had asked them to call her grandparents.
27.  The next hearing was scheduled for 24 January 2011. The court ordered B. and S. to bring X to testify at that hearing.
28.  On 20 January 2011 the childcare authority issued its opinion on the case. It found that, given that the parents had priority rights over anyone else in raising their children, X should be returned to her father.
29.  On 24 January 2011 the Cheremushinskiy District Court discontinued the civil proceedings, finding that civil proceedings between the same parties and concerning the same facts were pending before Uzbek courts.
30.  On 2 February 2011 the applicant appealed against the decision to discontinue the proceedings. On 8 April 2011 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 24 January 2011 on appeal as unlawful.
31.  On 19 April 2011 the mayor of the Mirzo-Ulugbek District of Tashkent appointed S. as X’s guardian, finding that her mother had died, that her father’s whereabouts were unknown and that she had been brought up by S. since 2008.
32.  On 28 April 2011 the Cheremushinskiy District Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled the next hearing for 27 May 2011.
33.  The hearing of 27 May 2011 was adjourned until 21 June 2011 because the first applicant and his counsel did not appear.
34.  At the end of the hearing of 21 June 2011 the Cheremushinskiy District Court decided to send a request for assistance to the Uzbek courts, asking that X be questioned about the following matters:
–  whether her grandparents were preventing her from seeing or contacting her father;
–  when she had seen her father for the last time;
–  whether she missed her father;
–  whether she wanted to live with her father; and
–  whether she talked to her father over the telephone and, if so, on whose initiative the telephone calls were made.
35.  On 20 July 2011 the Russian Ministry of Justice forwarded the request to their Uzbek colleagues.
36.  On 24 October 2011 the Ulugbekskiy District Court of Tashkent questioned X. Assisted by a specialist from the childcare authorities and by her guardian, S., X stated that her grandparents did not prevent her from contacting her father. She had access to the Internet and was present on social networks. She would like to contact her father, but she did not know his telephone number or email address, and had no social network account for him. She had seen her father for the last time about two years earlier. She missed him and would like to see him more often, but she would prefer to live with her grandparents.
37.  On an unspecified date the Cheremushinskiy District Court received the questioning record and scheduled the next hearing for 15 November 2011.
38.  The hearings of 15 November and 22 December 2011 were adjourned because the first applicant and his counsel did not appear. The next hearing was scheduled for 1 February 2012.
39.  On 31 January 2012 the first applicant asked that the hearing of 1 February 2012 be held in his absence. He submitted that he was prevented from travelling to Moscow and that his counsel was on maternity leave. They could not therefore attend the hearing.
40.  The hearing of 1 February 2012 was adjourned until 27 February 2012 because the first applicant and his counsel did not appear and because the childcare authority needed additional time to prepare a new opinion on the case, taking into account the child’s wishes.
41.  On 27 February 2012 the childcare authority issued a new opinion on the case. It found that X should remain with her grandparents.
42.  On 27 February 2012 the Cheremushinskiy District Court rejected the first applicant’s request for X to be returned to him. Taking into account X’s wishes and the opinion of the childcare authority, the court held that it would be in X’s best interests to remain with her grandparents.
43.  On 26 March 2012 the first applicant lodged appeal submissions. He complained, in particular, that the excessive length of the judicial proceedings had resulted in X’s getting used to living with her grandparents. He also complained that X had not been questioned by the District Court. Her questioning by an Uzbek court should not be taken into account because she had been under the influence of her grandparents, who had been present during the questioning. Lastly, the first applicant argued that under Russian law he had a right to priority over any other person in raising his daughter. The District Court’s judgment had legitimated X’s unlawful retention by her grandparents, who hindered any contacts between him and his daughter. All telephone numbers had been changed and, despite his repeated requests, he had not been given his daughter’s new telephone number. Her social network account had been inactive since January 2009. His relatives’ numerous attempts to visit X had been unsuccessful, as B. and S. had refused to let them into the house. By contrast, he had had the same telephone number and email address for at least ten years and X knew them. If she had unlimited access to telephone and the Internet, as B. and S. claimed, she could have contacted him without any difficulty. The first applicant claimed that those facts could have been easily verified but the District Court had failed to do so.
44.  Meanwhile, on 29 February 2012, the Mirzo-Ulugbek District Court of Tashkent, Uzbekistan, deprived the first applicant of parental authority over X at S.’s request. The District Court noted at the outset that it had been unable to obtain the first applicant’s submissions on the case. It had sent two requests for assistance to a competent Russian court, asking it to collect the first applicant’s submissions; the Russian court had however replied that it was impossible to obtain the first applicant’s submissions because he did not live at his registered place of residence. The District Court then found that X had been living with her maternal grandparents since 2008. The first applicant had not taken part in her upbringing and had not supported her financially. He had visited her only once, in 2010. The District Court also took note of X’s statement that she no longer remembered her father and wished to live with her grandparents.
45.  On 18 May 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 February 2012 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.
46.  On 8 October 2012 a judge of the Moscow City Court refused to refer a cassation appeal lodged by the first applicant to the Presidium of that Court for examination, finding that no significant violations of substantive or procedural law had influenced the outcome of the proceedings.
47.  In June 2015 X moved to Moscow with her grandparents.