5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow. 6.  In May 2008 she married R.M. The couple settled in Moscow. 7.  On 23 July 2008 and 31 May 2012 the applicant gave birth to two children, a son and a daughter respectively. 8.  In January 2014 she and R.M. decided to separate. 9.  On 14 January 2014 R.M. took the children to the Republic of Ingushetiya without the applicant knowing. He left them with his parents (the paternal grandparents) and went back to Moscow. 10.  On 4 March 2014 the marriage between the applicant and R.M. was dissolved. 11.  On 11 March 2014 the applicant applied to the Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) for a residence order in respect of the children. She also applied for child maintenance from R.M. 12.  On 25 June 2014 the District Court decided that the children should reside with their mother, the applicant. It further ordered R.M. to return the children to her and pay child maintenance. The judgment became final on 14 October 2014. 13.  However, R.M. refused to comply with the judgment. 14.  On 10 November 2014 the District Court issued a writ of execution. 15.  On 17 November 2014 the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetiya refused to institute enforcement proceedings since the debtor, R.M., resided in Moscow. 16.  On 24 November 2014 the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in Moscow opened enforcement proceedings. 17.  On 2 February 2015 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in the Republic of Ingushetiya. 18.  On 12 February 2015 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the above-mentioned decision before the District Court. 19.  On 8 April 2015 the District Court found the decision of 2 February 2015 to be unlawful. 20.  Meanwhile, on 23 March, 2 April, 14 April and 16 April 2015 a bailiff from the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service tried to enforce the judgment of 25 June 2014 without success: on 23 March and 16 April 2015 due to the emotional state of the children, on 2 April 2015 because the children were outside the territory of the Republic of Ingushetiya, and on 14 April 2015 because the applicant was absent. 21.  On 24 April 2015 the applicant challenged in court the lawfulness of the bailiffs’ actions during the attempt to return the children to her on 16 April 2015, in particular: involvement of the wrong district childcare authority in the enforcement, refusal of a request by her to have the enforcement filmed, refusal to examine an objection by her concerning a psychologist participating in the enforcement, delay in notification of the enforcement, establishment during the enforcement of the applicant’s son’s preferences as to his future living arrangements, as well as the bailiffs’ inaction resulting in the failure to secure enforcement of the judgment of 25 June 2014. 22.  On 11 June 2015 the Magasskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya found the bailiffs’ actions during the attempt to return the children to the applicant on 16 April 2015 to be unlawful. 23.  On 17 June 2015 a bailiff from the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service restricted R.M.’s travel within the Russian Federation for six months. 24.  Meanwhile, according to the Government, on 16 June, 5 July, an unspecified date in July, 15 July and 17 August 2015 a bailiff from the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the enforcement was scheduled for 22 June, 6 July, 13 July, 27 July and 19 August 2015 respectively. On each of the five occasions R.M. took the children to the premises of the Sunzhenskiy District Bailiffs’ Service. However, since neither the applicant nor her representative were present, the enforcement could not take place. 25.  According to the applicant, she was never informed of the enforcement dates scheduled for 22 June, 6 July, 13 July, 27 July and 19 August 2015. 26.  It appears from the case file that the notification of 16 June 2015 was sent to R.M.’s address. The notifications of 15 July and 17 August 2015 were sent to the applicant’s address, though there is no evidence to suggest that she received them. The case file contains no evidence that she was notified of the other two scheduled dates for carrying out the enforcement measures either. 27.  On 17 September 2015 the enforcement file was returned to the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in Moscow pursuant to the decision of the District Court of 8 April 2015 (see paragraph 19 above). 28.  On 6 October and 20 October 2015 a bailiff from the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service in Moscow ordered R.M. to comply with the judgment of 25 June 2014 by 13 October and 23 October 2015 respectively. He further visited R.M. at his place of residence in Moscow. It was established that the children were living with R.M.’s parents in the Republic of Ingushetiya. 29.  On 23 October 2015 the deputy chief bailiff of the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service imposed an administrative fine on R.M. of 2,500 Russian roubles (RUB) for failure to comply with the judgment of 25 June 2014. 30.  On 3 November 2015 a bailiff from the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service invited R.M. to the bailiffs’ office on 10 November 2015 to provide explanations for his non-compliance with the judgment of 25 June 2014. 31.  On 10 November 2015 the bailiff imposed an execution fee on R.M. of RUB 5,000 for failure to comply with the judgment of 25 June 2014. He was ordered to comply by 13 November 2015. 32.  On 20 November 2015 the deputy chief bailiff of the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service imposed a further administrative fine on R.M. of RUB 2,500 for failure to comply with the judgment of 25 June 2014. 33.  On the same day the chief bailiff of the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service imposed an administrative fine on R.M. of RUB 1,000 for failure to comply with the lawful demands of the bailiffs. 34.  On 14 January 2016 the Commission for the Affairs of Minors and the Protection of Their Rights of the Severnoye Izmaylovo District in Moscow imposed an administrative fine on R.M. of RUB 2,000. 35.  On the same day the bailiff temporarily restricted R.M.’s travel in view of his failure to comply with the judgment of 25 June 2014, and ordered him to pay the imposed administrative fines. R.M. was invited to the bailiffs’ office on 19 January 2016 to provide explanations for his reluctance to comply with the judgment of 25 June 2014, and was ordered to comply by 20 January 2016. 36.  At the applicant’s request, on 3 February 2016 the bailiff launched a search for the children and restricted R.M.’s right to drive. 37.  On 5 February 2016 the chief bailiff of the Izmaylovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service imposed an administrative fine on R.M. of RUB 1,000 for failure to comply with the lawful demands of the bailiffs. 38.  On 13 April 2016 the bailiff telephoned R.M. and asked him to attend the bailiffs’ office to provide explanations for his non-compliance with the judgment of 25 June 2014. He refused to do so. 39.  On 14 April 2016 the bailiff suspended the enforcement proceedings. 40.  According to the Government, on 5 May 2016 the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement was scheduled for 10 a.m. on 19 May 2016 at the children’s place of residence in the Republic of Ingushetiya. However, since she failed to attend, the enforcement could not be carried out. 41.  According to the applicant, she was not informed of the enforcement scheduled for 19 May 2016. 42.  It appears from the case file that the notification of 5 May 2016 was sent to R.M.’s address. 43.  The judgment of 25 June 2014 remains unenforced to date. The children continue to live with their paternal grandparents in the Republic of Ingushetiya.