05 Mar Violation of the Convention for not taking into consideration the applicant’s request to maintain contact with his granddaughter

The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Bogonosovy v. Russia (application no. 38201/16, 05.03.2019).

The case concerned a grandfathers Vera Vladimirovna Bogonosova and Georgiy Ivanovich Bogonosov (Ms Bogonosova passed away in August 2018) who wanted to maintain ties with their granddaughter after her adoption. When the applicants’ daughter died, aplicants’ granddaughter, M., was adopted by the applicants’ relatives, who have helped the applicant to look after M.

After facing problems maintaining post-adoption contact with his granddaughter, the applicants appealed against the adoption judgment. The St Petersburg City Court upheld the adoption in May 2015, stating that the law did not require that relatives such as grandparents be notified of or be involved in an adoption. On the other hand, under Article 67 of the Family Code they had a right to maintain contact with a child and could seek a court order if the adoptive parents prevented such contact. However, when applicant made such an application, the District Court discontinued the proceedings. It held that the original adoption process had not indicated that he was to continue to have family ties with the child and so he had no right to seek an order against the adoptive parents to allow contact. In Ms Bogonosova’s case, the first-instance court ordered that she be allowed contact, but this was overturned on appeal by the adoptive parents. The appeal court stated that neither civil nor family law gave Ms Bogonosova the right to seek an order for post-adoption contact.

The Court decided that it would not proceed with Ms Bogonosova’s application as no heir or close relative had wished to pursue it after her death.

The Court held that the domestic courts should have assessed the request to maintain a post-adoption relationship with their granddaughter but had instead interpreted and applied the law in a way that had denied him such an examination. He had thus been excluded completely and automatically from his granddaughter’s life and his rights had been breached.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights