6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Balashikha, a town in the Moscow Region. 7.  From 2008 the applicant lived together with A.D. in an extramarital relationship. 8.  They separated shortly after A.D. became pregnant in autumn 2009, but continued to maintain regular contact. 9.  On 6 July 2010 A.D. gave birth to a baby girl, P. The applicant had regular contact with the child. 10.  In January 2011 A.D. started avoiding communication with the applicant and preventing him from visiting the child. 11.  On 6 June 2011 the applicant brought a claim seeking the establishment of his paternity of the child and the determination of the terms of his contact with the latter. 12.  On 25 June 2012 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) discontinued the examination of the applicant’s claim in so far as it concerned the determination of his contact rights. The District Court reasoned that such claims could only be brought by one of the child’s parents, whereas on the date of its examination of the claim in question the applicant’s paternity of the child had not been established. 13.  On the same day the District Court established the applicant’s paternity of P. 14.  On 20 December 2012, following an appeal by A.D., the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the judgment of 25 June 2012 establishing the applicant’s paternity of the child and dismissed the applicant’s claim. 15.  On 4 October 2013, following an appeal by the applicant, the Presidium of the City Court, under the cassation procedure, quashed the judgment of 25 June 2012 and the appeal decision of 20 December 2012 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. 16.  On 13 November 2013 the District Court left unexamined the applicant’s claims in view of new proceedings instituted by the applicant (see below). 17.  On 29 October 2013 A.D.’s partner, A.K., was registered as the child’s father. 18.  On 11 November 2013 the applicant challenged the registration of A.K. as the child’s father, seeking that his own paternity of the child be established and that his contact rights with the latter be determined. 19.  On 24 January 2014 the District Court ordered that A.K.’s registration as the child’s father be annulled, established the applicant’s paternity of the child, and held that contact between the applicant and his daughter should take place at A.D.’s place of residence on the first Saturday and second Sunday of every month from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. 20.  On 28 July 2014 the City Court upheld the judgment of 24 January 2014 following an appeal by A.D. and A.K. 21.  On 5 December 2014, after failed attempts to persuade A.D. to comply with the judgment of 24 January 2014 ‒ as upheld on appeal on 28 July 2014 ‒ the applicant applied to the Tsaritsynskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in Moscow (“the district bailiffs’ service”) for the institution of enforcement proceedings. 22.  On 12 December 2014 a bailiff from the district bailiffs’ service declined to institute such enforcement proceedings, because the operative part of the judgment did not oblige A.D. to carry out or to abstain from certain actions. 23.  On 4 February 2015 the applicant lodged a claim challenging the lawfulness of the above-mentioned decision. 24.  On 18 March 2015 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. 25.  On 6 July 2015 the City Court quashed the above-mentioned judgment, holding that the decision of 12 December 2014 declining to institute enforcement proceedings had been unlawful. 26.  On 10 August 2015 a bailiff from the district bailiffs’ service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 24 January 2014. 27.  On 17 August and 24 August 2015 the bailiff telephoned A.D. On the former date A.D. answered the phone. She was informed of the institution of the enforcement proceedings and summoned to appear before the bailiff on 20 August 2015. On the latter date the bailiff telephoned the same number, only to be answered by a woman who told the bailiff that the telephone number did not belong to A.D., after which she hung up. 28.  On 6 October 2015 the enforcement proceedings were transferred from the district bailiffs’ service to the newly created Inter-district Department of Bailiffs for the Recovery of Child Maintenance Payments of the Federal Bailiffs’ Service of Russia for Moscow (Межрайонный отдел судебных приставов по взысканию алиментных платежей № 1 УФССП России по г. Москве, “the Inter-district Department of Bailiffs”). 29.  On 30 October 2015 a bailiff of the Inter-district Department of Bailiffs decided to accept the proceedings for enforcement. 30.  On 30 October and 10 December 2015, and on 12 February and 25 July 2016 the bailiff sent A.D. notices of enforcement of the judgment of 24 January 2014. 31.  On 4 December 2015 the bailiff several times called A.D.’s telephone number, but nobody answered. 32.  On 7 December 2015 the bailiff again made calls to A.D.’s telephone numbers. One call was answered by a woman who introduced herself as A.D.’s mother and refused to answer any questions. 33.  Over the course of 2015 the applicant lodged multiple complaints concerning the inactivity of the the Inter-district Department of Bailiffs to various authorities, including the Inter-district Prosecutor’s Office, the head of the Federal Department of Bailiffs’ Service for Moscow, and the Ombudsman for Children. 34.  On 14 February 2016 a bailiff visited A.D.’s presumed place of residence. The door was opened by A.D.’s mother, to whom the bailiff handed a notice of enforcement of the judgment of 24 January 2014. She told the bailiff that she was unaware of her daughter’s whereabouts and that A.D. would not give the child to the applicant. 35.  On 17 February 2016 the bailiff received a declaration by A.D., in which she stated that she was not going to let the applicant contact the child as the child did not wish to have such contact. 36.  On 2 March 2016 the bailiff sent enquiries to kindergarten no. 1457 in Moscow, the Moscow City Children’s Polyclinic no. 23, the Public Services Centre of the Biryulyovo Vostochnoye District, and the Social Protection Administration for the Biryulyovo Vostochnoye District in order to establish, respectively, whether the child attended the kindergarten, was receiving medical services, and lived with A.D. at the address visited by the bailiff. 37.  On 2 March, 17 March and 11 April 2016 the bailiff took decisions to involve a psychologist in the enforcement proceedings. 38.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date the bailiff imposed an execution fee on A.D. for her failure to comply with the judgment of 24 January 2014 and warned her of her administrative liability[1] for not complying with that judgment. 39.  On 29 April 2016 the bailiff obtained A.D.’s written declaration. A.D. submitted, in particular, that on 14 March 2016 she brought a claim before the District Court to challenge the applicant’s paternity, to withdraw his parental rights and restore A.K.’s parental authority (see 49 below). She furthermore submitted that she could not comply with the judgment of 24 January 2014 since the child strongly objected to having any contact with the applicant. 40.  Meanwhile, at the applicant’s request, in June 2016 the Inter-district Department of Bailiffs appointed another bailiff to oversee the enforcement proceedings. 41.  In accordance with requests lodged by A.D. on 28 April and 28 July 2016, on the latter date the District Court suspended the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 24 January 2014, pending the outcome of the proceedings initiated by A.D. on 14 March 2016. 42.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 30 September 2016 the Moscow City Court found the decision of 28 July 2016 to suspend the enforcement proceedings unlawful and unsubstantiated and quashed it. 43.  According to the Government, on 3 November 2016 the bailiff imposed an administrative fine on A.D. under Article 5.35 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation for her non‑compliance with the judgment of 24 January 2014[2]. 44.  On 12 December 2016 the bailiff adopted a decision temporarily restricting A.D.’s travel outside the Russian Federation. 45.  On 4 February 2017 in the course of the enforcement proceedings the applicant met his daughter for the first time since January 2011. According to the applicant, despite the difficult environment of the meeting, the child was willing to communicate. 46.  Subsequently, the applicant tried to see his daughter on 12 February and 4 March 2017 (the second Sunday and the first Saturday of the month respectively); he was unaccompanied by the bailiff. On the first occasion A.D. prevented the applicant from seeing the child; on the second occasion neither she nor the child were present at their place of residence at the scheduled time. Reports of these events were submitted by the applicant to the police and the bailiff. 47.  On 12 March 2017 the applicant again came to see his daughter; this time he was accompanied by a bailiff. A.D. brought the child into the applicant’s presence to talk with him; however, she turned the child against the applicant and asked her to decide whether she needed to have any relations with the applicant. The child replied that she refused to communicate with the applicant. A report of this was drawn up by the bailiff. 48.  The case file contains no information about the further course of the enforcement proceedings. 49.  On 14 March 2016 A.D. brought an action before the District Court seeking to recover child maintenance from the applicant, to terminate his parental rights and to restore the parental rights of A.K. 50.  The case file contains no further information on the outcome of those proceedings.