5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Mykolayiv. 6.  The applicant married O. in 2006. The spouses lived in Mykolayiv. On 21 March 2007 their daughter S. was born. In August 2007 the couple separated. O. continued to live with the child at a different address in Mykolayiv and that place of the child’s residence was not, at that time, a matter of dispute between the parents. 7.  On 15 April 2009 the Leninsky District Court of Mykolayiv, in response to an application from O., pronounced the couple’s divorce. 8.  On 4 June 2009, in response to a claim brought by the applicant against O. concerning hindrance of access to the child, the Leninsky District Court of Mykolayiv granted the applicant rights of access to his daughter. It ordered that the applicant should be granted an opportunity to see his daughter no less than three times a week, including overnight stays with the applicant, the dates and times thereof to be fixed by mutual agreement in advance. 9.  On 13 July 2009 the local police examined the applicant’s complaint concerning threats which O. regularly made when the applicant went to see the child, as well as O.’s refusal to let the child stay overnight with him and her restriction on the amount of time which the applicant could spend with the child. The police refused to open criminal proceedings because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence. 10.  In the autumn of 2009 O. and S. moved to Selydove in the Donetsk Region. The distance between Mykolayiv and Selydove is about 600 kilometres by road. In view of that, the applicant initiated civil proceedings asking the court to determine that the child should live with him in Mykolayiv. That claim was dismissed as unfounded by the courts with the final decision being taken by the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCU”) on 1 August 2011. 11.  On 20 October 2009, at the applicant’s request, the Mykolayiv State Bailiffs’ Service opened proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of 4 June 2009. However, on 22 October 2009 the bailiffs’ decision was quashed since the procedure for enforcement of a court judgment of that kind was not specified by law. 12.  On 19 November 2009 the applicant arrived in Selydove, where O. allowed him to see the child for about one hour. On 27 January 2010, when O. and S. arrived for a short stay in Mykolayiv, the applicant attempted to see his daughter, but O. refused to let him take the child overnight. On 20 October 2011 when the applicant arrived in Selydove and attempted to collect the child from the childcare centre, O. arrived and took back the child. The applicant’s complaints to the police on account of those incidents were dismissed because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence. 13.  On 28 March 2012 the applicant submitted to the Selydove State Bailiff’s Service a writ of execution of judgment dated 4 June 2009. On 29 March 2012 the State bailiff opened the enforcement proceedings. On 9 April 2012 in the presence of the applicant, O. and two witnesses, the State bailiff read out the operative part of the judgment of 4 June 2009 and issued a resolution on termination of the enforcement proceedings, considering that the judgment had been fully enforced by so doing. 14.  The applicant brought a challenge in the courts against the termination of the enforcement proceedings. The courts upheld the bailiffs’ decision, finding that it had been taken in accordance with the law. The final decision was taken by the HSCU, which on 3 August 2012 dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 15.  On 20 November 2012 in proceedings concerning child support allowances, the applicant admitted that he took the child to Mykolayiv to live with him for about one or two months per year. 16.  In January 2013 the applicant brought a claim for damages against O. for obstructing enforcement of the judgment of 4 June 2009 granting him access rights. The courts dismissed the claim for lack of proof. The final decision in those proceedings, rejecting the applicant’s appeal on points of law, was delivered by the HSCU on 14 June 2013. 17.  On 21 June 2013 the Leninskyy Dstrict Police Department in Mykolayiv opened criminal proceedings following the applicant’s complaint that O. had refused to comply with the judgment of 4 June 2009. On 10 December 2014 the police terminated the criminal proceedings because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence. The applicant challenged that decision in the court. On 1 April 2015 the Leninskyy District Court of Mykolayiv quashed the decision of 10 December 2014 after finding that the investigator had failed to substantiate his conclusion. The criminal investigation was resumed. 18.  In 2014 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in Selydove Town Court seeking to determine anew his access rights in view of the impediments caused by O. On 12 January 2014 his claim was dismissed as unfounded. However, on 8 December 2015 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant’s claim. It found that O. had prevented the applicant from properly exercising his access rights and ruled that the applicant should be given the opportunity of spending one month with his daughter during the summer and one week during the winter school holidays every year until she attained the age of majority. 19.  On 26 May 2016 the Selydove department of State bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings in relation to the judgment of 8 December 2015. On 10 June 2016 the bailiffs notified O. about the judgment of 8 December 2015. 20.  In spring 2014 illegal armed groups associated with two self‑proclaimed entities known as the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” started operating in the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions, seizing control of certain parts of those regions by force. Ukrainian Government forces launched a military anti-terrorist operation against them. A ceasefire line was later put in place. Selydove is in the territory controlled by the Ukrainian Government, about twenty-five kilometres from the ceasefire line, and was included in the list of locations where the military anti‑terrorist operation was being conducted. According to information provided by the Government, in April 2014 certain movements of illegal armed groups had been registered in Selydovo, but no active military operations had ever taken place in that area. 21.  In August 2014 the applicant lodged a claim with the Selydove Court seeking a declaration that O. was unlawfully failing to cooperate in executing the judgment of 4 June 2009 granting the applicant access rights. He also asked the court to determine that the child’s place of residence should be his home in Mykolayiv. He argued that O. was unemployed and had no source of independent income, and that the child was fully dependent on the child support payments which the applicant was duly making. He also argued that it was dangerous for the child to continue to reside in the proximity of a theatre of armed conflict. Moreover, there was a risk that the conflict might spread to Selydove. In support of the latter assertion the applicant cited media reports according to which representatives of the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” were threatening to capture all the territory of the Donetsk Region. 22.  On 5 May 2015 the Selydove Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The court established that the applicant was employed and had good references from his employer, and had no recorded mental health or addiction problems. The court quoted a report compiled by the child protection authority in Mykolayiv, according to which the applicant could provide secure, well‑equipped accommodation suitable for a child, and had stable employment and income. However, the applicant had failed to prove that O. had no independent income or had failed to perform her parental duties or was engaged in unlawful or immoral conduct. The court also stated that the applicant had not substantiated the allegation that the child’s life was in danger and the mere fact of anti-terrorist military operations taking place in the region did not prove that risk. 23.  On 4 August 2015 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the Selydove Court’s judgment, finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate the allegations that the child’s place of residence should be changed. 24.  On 23 December 2015 the HSCU upheld the lower courts’ decisions. It stated that the Selydove Town Court had correctly established the relevant facts and had properly applied the law. The HSCU agreed with the lower courts’ conclusion that separating the child from the mother had not been justified.