ts, and on the basis of Article 77 of the Family Code, the Kirov municipal authority had issued the impugned decision and the girl was placed in the intensive care unit. Following her transfer to that unit, A.'s condition had improved, as confirmed by a medical report dated 22 January 2004 and the conclusions of a doctors' meeting of 19 February 2004.
39. On the basis of the above elements, the court upheld the order, finding that it neither contravened the existing legislation nor violated any of the applicant's rights.
40. The applicant appealed against the judgment of 24 February 2004. The appeal was examined and dismissed by the Kirov Regional Court on 1 April 2004.
D. Access to A. by the applicant
and E. following the removal order
41. Following the implementation of the removal order of 11 December 2003 the Pervomayskiy District Court decided on 9 February 2004 that A. be placed in the provisional custody of the local Custody and Guardianship Agency. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court.
42. It appears that after A.'s removal and throughout 2004 the applicant and his wife attempted to visit A. on many occasions in order to hand over food and toys, but the hospital authorities and the Kirov local authority refused such contact without giving any reasons.
43. In June 2004 the parents unsuccessfully lodged applications for a court injunction against the hospital and the local administration preventing the defendants from interfering with their right to communicate with the child and participate in her upbringing.
44. By decisions of 16 June, 13 July and 15 September 2004 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed their applications on grounds of various procedural irregularities, specifically failure to clarify the allegations and to provide supporting documents and information.
45. It appears that the applicant rectified the irregularities and the proceedings were finally instituted on an unspecified date.
46. On 22 September 2004 the Pervomayskiy District Court granted an application by the Kirov authority's education department to adjourn the proceedings in the access case pending resolution of the adoption issue (see below). There is no evidence that the parents appealed against that decision.
E. Court proceedings for revocation of the adoption
47. On 17 December 2003 the Prosecutor of the Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov applied to a court for revocation of A.'s adoption.
48. In March 2004 the applicant applied to the court, requesting it to order a medical report on the adequacy of the treatment provided to A. by the Kirov Regional Hospital.
49. By a decision of 22 April 2004 the court granted his application and ordered the Russian Children's Hospital in Moscow to conduct an examination into the accuracy of the child's diagnosis and the adequacy of the medical treatment received at the Kirov Regional Hospital. The experts were also required to consider whether at the time of A.'s removal there had been a threat to A.'s life or health and whether there had been a need for her to be placed in the intensive care unit.
50. The applicant alleged that his request to attend the examination had been refused. It also appears that some of his questions were excluded from the court decision ordering the examination.
51. The Government submitted that the applicant had not made any request to attend the examination and that in any event the applicant had never contested the decision of 22 April 2004 on appeal.
52. They further submitted that the examination had been carried out on 10 June 2004. The experts concluded that A.'s diagnosis had been accurate and that the treatment and medicine had fully corresponded to the diagnosis. Furthermore, they
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
