7.  The US nationals (“the US applicants”) started proceedings for the adoption of children from Russia between 2010 and 2012. They had complied with the requirements set by the United States authorities, having obtained favourable appraisals of their living and financial conditions and their suitability to adopt a child. Some of the applicants had had to comply with additional requirements laid down in the Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Regarding Cooperation in Adoption of Children (“Bilateral Agreement on Adoption”) upon its entry into force on 1 November 2012. They then applied to the competent Russian authorities who, except in those cases where the adoption proceedings had focussed on a particular child from the outset, provided them with information concerning the children who were available for adoption. 8.  In most cases the US applicants received a positive decision from the Russian authorities regarding both the impossibility of placing the child in a Russian family and their suitability to become adoptive parents. As part of the adoption procedure, they obtained a referral to visit the child concerned, which enabled them to spend several days with him or her at the respective orphanage. They visited the children and reaffirmed their formal agreement to adopt them. In some cases, according to the US applicants, they had formed a bond with the child even before initiating the adoption procedure, and one case concerned the adoption of the brother of a previously adopted girl (cases nos. 23890/13, 37173/13 and 42340/13 respectively; see the specific circumstances below). In such cases the adoption procedure referred to a particular child from the outset. Many of the prospective adoptive children suffer from serious health issues and require specialist medical care. 9.  By the end of 2012 most of the US applicants had completed all the requisite steps of the adoption procedure prior to submitting the adoption application to a court. However, on 21 December 2012 the Russian State Duma adopted the Federal Law no. 272-FZ on Measures in respect of Persons Involved in a Breach of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Rights and Freedoms of Nationals of the Russian Federation (“Law no. 272‑FZ”), which, inter alia, banned the adoption of Russian children by nationals of the United States. The law entered into force on 1 January 2013. 10.  Adoption proceedings were halted in respect of those US applicants who had not submitted an adoption application to a court before the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 11.  In respect of those US applicants who had submitted an adoption application to a court but had not attended a hearing before the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ, the courts discontinued the adoption proceedings, relying on Law no. 272-FZ. Some of the applicants appealed. Their appeals were dismissed. 12.  Applications for adoption submitted by US nationals after 1 January 2013 were rejected on procedural grounds, with similar reference to Law no. 272-FZ. Where an application had been submitted on behalf of the US applicants by an adoption agency, it was rejected on the grounds that the agency could not submit an application to the court because the activities of such agencies had been banned. Where the application had been submitted by some other kind of representative, it was rejected because it should have been submitted by such an adoption agency only. 13.  The US applicants were subsequently removed from the State databank containing information on prospective adoptive parents, meaning that they could no longer be considered as such. 14.  After spring 2013 some of the prospective adoptive children were transferred for adoption by different families or placed in foster families.
(b)  Circumstances surrounding the entry into force of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption and Law no. 272-FZ 15.  On 13 July 2011 the United States and the Russian Federation signed the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption setting out the procedure for intercountry adoption between the two States. It entered into force on 1 November 2012. 16.  On 21 December 2012 the Russian State Duma adopted Law no. 272-FZ ‒ which was signed by the President on 28 December 2012 ‒ also known as the “Anti-Magnitsky Law” or the “Dima Yakovlev Law” due to the circumstances underlying its adoption. The law has been described as a response to the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 passed by the United States Congress in November/December 2012 and signed by the US President on 14 December 2012 (the “Magnitsky Act”). The Magnitsky Act imposed sanctions on the Russian officials who were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who had exposed alleged large-scale tax fraud involving State officials and subsequently died in custody. The Magnitsky Act prohibited the Russian officials from entering the United States and using the United States’ banking system. The list of the eighteen individuals concerned was made public by the Administration of the President of the United States. 17.  The Russian authorities’ response involved the passing of a similar act in respect of United States nationals responsible for gross human rights violations, prohibiting their entry into Russia and freezing their assets within Russia. However, Section 4 § 1 of Law no. 272‑FZ also introduced a ban on the adoption of Russian children by United States nationals. The introduction of that provision was prompted by the death in 2008 of Dima Yakovlev, a Russian toddler adopted by United States nationals. He was left alone for nine hours strapped in his adoptive father’s car after the latter forgot to take him to his day-care centre. The father was eventually acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. This news created a stir in the Russian media and resulted in the highlighting of a number of abuse cases involving Russian children adopted by United States nationals, leading to calls from certain Russian authorities to restrict or end adoptions by US nationals. 18.  On 28 December 2012 the United States Department of State released a statement concerning the adoption of Law no. 272-FZ which read, insofar as relevant:
“We deeply regret Russia’s passage of a law ending inter-country adoptions between the United States and Russia and restricting Russian civil society organizations that work with American partners. American families have adopted over 60,000 Russian children over the past 20 years, and the vast majority of these children are now thriving thanks to their parents’ loving support. The Russian government’s politically motivated decision will reduce adoption possibilities for children who are now under institutional care. We regret that the Russian government has taken this step rather than seek to implement the bilateral adoption agreement that entered into force in November. We are further concerned about statements that adoptions already underway may be stopped and hope that the Russian government would allow those children who have already met and bonded with their future parents to finish the necessary legal procedures so that they can join their families.” 19.  On 1 January 2013 Law no. 272-FZ entered into force. On the same date the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the US Embassy in Moscow that, pursuant to Section 4 § 2 of Law no. 272-FZ, Russia was terminating the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption. Pursuant to Article 17 of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, it should have remained in force until one year from the date on which one of the States Parties informed the other Party of its intention to terminate the Agreement, and this move therefore caused confusion regarding the validity of the agreement and the outcome of the pending adoption cases involving prospective adoptive parents from the United States. 20.  During a briefing on 8 January 2013, a United States Department of State spokesperson announced that Russia had informed the United States of its intention to suspend the Bilateral Adoption Agreement. 21.  On 10 January 2013 news agencies including the BBC and RIA Novosti reported that the Russian President’s Press Secretary had stated that the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption was still in force on that date and that it would remain valid until early January 2014. On the afternoon of the same day the Russian Ministry of External Affairs posted a comment on its website stating that Russia had not merely suspended the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption but had terminated it, and that a communication to this effect had been handed over to the United States Embassy in Moscow on 1 January 2013. 22.  On 13 January 2013 about twenty thousand people gathered on the streets of Moscow to take part in an action called March Against Scoundrels to protest against Law no. 272-FZ. 23.  The law was also criticised by human rights organisations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and received numerous negative reactions from the media, including Time, The Economist and The Guardian. Most of the critical commentators argued that the law was politically motivated and detrimental to the children’s interests. 24.  On 15 January 2013 forty-eight members of the United States Congress sent a letter to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, on behalf of the United States families affected by Law no. 272-FZ. The letter requested exemption for families who were in the final stages of the adoption procedure and invited Russia to re-join the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption. 25.  On 22 January 2013 the Russian Supreme Court issued a letter instructing the lower courts to allow the transfer of adopted Russian children into families of United States nationals where the adoption decision had been taken prior to 1 January 2013, even if it had entered into force after that date. 26.  Proceedings in all cases involving prospective adoptive parents from the United States in which a decision on adoption had not been delivered before 1 January 2013 were halted, irrespective of the status of the proceedings. 27.  On 2 July 2013 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) adopted a Resolution on Intercountry Adoption in which it called on member States “to recognize the foundational bond between prospective adoptive parents and the child and to honor and protect these nascent families” and urged them “to resolve differences, disputes, and controversies related to intercountry adoptions in a positive and humanitarian spirit” so as “to avoid any general, indiscriminate disruption of intercountry adoptions already in progress that could jeopardize the best interests of the child, harm the nascent family, or deter prospective adoptive parents from pursuing an intercountry adoption” see paragraph 301 below). Although Russia was not specifically referred to in the Resolution, it was introduced by US Senator Roger Wicker in direct response to the ban on adoptions by United States nationals. 28.  According to a news report by RIA Novosti of 5 July 2013, the Russian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed as futile any attempts by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to make Russia annul the previously adopted decisions concerning intercountry adoption, the latter being in full compliance with international law. 29.  Application no. 6033/13 was lodged on 22 January 2013 by three groups of applicants.
(i)  First group of applicants 30.  A.J.H., born on 16 May 1976, and J.A.H., born on 26 June 1977, who live in Vaughn, Montana, United States (the US applicants), and D.M., who was born on 17 August 2009 and lives in Lobnya, the Moscow Region. 31.  D.M. suffers, in particular, from Down syndrome, delayed psychological and speech development, congenital heart disease and insufficient blood flow. He was born prematurely. 32.  Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicants were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 6 August 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 33.  On 24 September 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit D.M. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited him every day between 24 and 28 September 2012 and again between 10 and either 13 or 14 January 2013[2]. Each visit lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. 35.  On 15 November 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing initially scheduled for 21 December 2012 was rescheduled for 15 January 2013 at the applicants’ request. 36.  On 10 January 2013 the US applicants arrived in Russia and visited D.M. every day between 10 and either 13 or 14 January 2013[3]. 37.  On 15 January 2013 the US applicants appeared before the court. However, the hearing was adjourned at the request of the Ministry of Education of the Moscow Region, which cited a lack of guidance from the Supreme Court of Russia on the application of Law no. 272-FZ. A new hearing was scheduled for 21 January 2013. 38.  On 21 January 2013 the US applicants appeared before the court. However, the Moscow Regional Court postponed the hearing until 11 February 2013 in response to a similar request from the Ministry of Education of the Moscow Region. 39.  On 22 January 2013 the US applicants left for the United States. They booked a flight for 9 February 2013 in order to be present at the next hearing. 40.  On 23 January 2013 the US applicants’ representative, Ms Zakharina[4], was informed that the hearing had been rescheduled for an earlier date, namely 30 January 2013. This left the US applicants insufficient time to reschedule their trip to Russia, and they were unable to be present at the hearing. 41.  On 30 January 2013 the Moscow Regional Court discontinued the adoption procedure on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt D.M. The US applicants appealed. 42.  On 14 May 2013 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 January 2013. The US applicants lodged cassation appeal. 43.  On 26 August 2013 the Moscow Regional Court refused leave to have the cassation appeal examined by the Presidium. 44.  According to the Government, D.M. has been placed with a foster family.
(ii)  Second group of applicants 45.  G.D.C., born on 14 August 1980 and who lives in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States (“the US applicant”), and E.G., who was born on 28 May 2010 and lives in St. Petersburg. 47.  The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicant was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 8 November 2012. She was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 48.  On 28 November 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit E.G. from the Ministry of Education and Science. She visited her every day between 28 November and 1 December 2012. Each visit lasted approximately two hours. 51.  On 13 February 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the application on the grounds that G.D.C. could not be represented by her representative, E.F., because an application of this kind could only be submitted by an authorised agency. The US applicant appealed. 53.  On 12 March 2013 the US applicant resubmitted the application through another representative, O.T. 54.  On 21 March 2013 the second application was rejected for the same reasons. The US applicant appealed. 55.  On 2 and 12 April 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court dismissed the appeals against its decisions of 13 February and 21 March 2013 respectively. 56.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 57.  According to the Government, E.G. has been placed with a foster family.
(iii)  Third group of applicants 58.  J.M., born on 1 June 1981, and A.M., born on 14 April 1982, who live in Gainesville, Georgia, United States (the US applicants), and V.T., who was born on 30 September 2008 and lives in Mytischy, the Moscow Region. 59.  V.T. is developmentally delayed, he suffers from Down syndrome, hearing loss, heterotropy, intrauterine hypoxia, congenital heart disease (he underwent heart surgery in 2009 where an electric cardiostimulator was implanted), and a number of other illnesses. 60.  The US applicants, who have two biological children and one adopted child, initiated the procedure to adopt another child in March 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 17 August 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 61.  On 1 October 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit V.T. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited him every day between 1 and 5 October 2012 and again between 17 and 21 January 2013. Each visit lasted four hours. 63.  On 30 November 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing initially scheduled for 22 January 2013 was rescheduled for 12 February 2013 at the request of the Ministry of Education. However, on the same date the prosecutor requested that the proceedings be speeded up due to the uncertainty over the child’s fate. Eventually the hearing was rescheduled for 31 January 2013. 64.  On 31 January 2013 the Moscow Regional Court discontinued the adoption procedure on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt V.T. The US applicants appealed. 65.  On 14 May 2013 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 January 2013 on appeal. The US applicants lodged cassation appeal. 66.  On 10 December 2013 the Moscow Regional Court refused leave to have the cassation appeal examined by the Presidium. 67.  On 22 April 2013 the US applicants were removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents, an action of which they were not informed until 26 April 2013. 68.  According to the Government, V.T. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about him.
(b)  Application no. 8927/13 69.  Application no. 8927/13 was lodged on 4 February 2013 by J.J., born on 12 December 1983, and Jn.J., born on 25 January 1984, who live in Dover, New Jersey, United States (the US applicants), and A.M., who was born on 27 January 2007 and lives in Moscow. 71.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in March 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 16 November 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 72.  On 26 November 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.M. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited her every day between 27 and 30 November 2012. Each visit lasted two to three hours. 73.  On 28 December 2012 the adoption application was submitted to the Moscow Regional Court. The hearing was first scheduled for 8 February 2013, but then rescheduled for 31 January 2013. As it left the US applicants insufficient time to reschedule their trip to Russia, they asked the court to postpone the hearing. 74.  On 31 January 2013 the Moscow Regional Court rejected the request to postpone the hearing and discontinued the adoption procedure on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt V.T. The US applicants appealed. 76.  On 22 April 2013 the US applicants were removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 77.  According to the Government, A.M. has been placed with a foster family.
(c)  Application no. 10549/13 78.  Application no. 10549/13 was lodged on 11 February 2013 by J.E.L., born on 1 June 1962 and A.M.L., born on 4 February 1972, who live in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, United States (the US applicants), and S.T., who was born on 29 November 2011 and lives in Volgograd. 80.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 13 June 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Christian World Adoptions, Inc.”. 81.  On 23 October 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit S.T. from the Ministry of Education and Science. They visited her twice a day between 24 and 29 October 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 83.  On 1 February 2013 the adoption procedure was discontinued on the grounds that under Law no. 272-FZ the US applicants had no right to adopt S.T. 84.  On 15 February 2013 the US applicants appealed. On 20 February 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court stayed the appeal proceedings and instructed the US applicants to correct certain deficiencies by 20 March 2013. On 3 April 2013 the appeal statement was returned to the US applicants. On 25 April 2013 they resubmitted the appeal. On 7 May 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the time-limit for appeal. 86.  On 14 February 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 88.  Application no. 12275/13 was lodged on 18 February 2013 by nine groups of applicants.
(i)  First group of applicants 89.  M.S.P., born on 15 May 1974, and A.N.P., born on 6 March 1980, who live in Papillon, Nebraska, United States (the US applicants), and A.A., who was born on 21 June 2005 and lives in St. Petersburg. 90.  A.A. suffers from Down syndrome, moderate mental deficiency, delay in physical development, strabismus, planovalgus deformity, and hyperbilirubinemia. 91.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in August 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 6 September 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 92.  On 8 October 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.A. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St. Petersburg Administration. They visited her on three days in October 2012. Each visit lasted between one and a half and two hours. 94.  On 24 December 2012 the application was returned to the US applicants’ representative, E.F. In the court’s ruling, it was stated that it had been returned at E.F.’s request. According to the US applicants, they did not ask E.F. to withdraw the application, and she did not apply to the court to have it withdrawn. Rather, the court asked her to take it back. The US applicants were not informed of this ruling, but having learned about it, they filed a complaint against it, arguing that they had never requested their representative to withdraw the application and that the power of attorney did not empower her to do that. On 4 June 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court set aside the ruling of 24 December 2012. It appears that no further decisions were taken in the case. 95.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 96.  According to the Government, A.A. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about her.
(ii)  Second group of applicants 97.  D.S.G., born on 29 May 1974 and who lives in New York, New York, United States (the US applicant), and O.N., who was born on 24 June 2011 and lives in St. Petersburg. 98.  O.N. suffers from a mixed developmental disorder, atopic dermatitis, food allergies and hypermetria of both eyes with astigmatism. 99.  The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, she was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 9 October 2012. She was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “International Assistance Group, Inc.”. 100.  On 24 December 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit O.N. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. She visited her twice a day between 24 and 28 December 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 102.  On 11 February 2013 the adoption application was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court by the adoption agency. 103.  On 13 February 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the application on the grounds that as of 1 January 2013 the agency’s activity had been banned in Russia pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ. On 4 March 2013 the US applicant appealed. 104.  On 25 March 2013 the appeal statement was returned to the US applicant without examination on the grounds that it had been lodged outside the applicable time-limit. 105.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 106.  According to the Government, O.N. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(iii)  Third group of applicants 107.  B.C., born on 13 June 1965, and J.W.S., born on 4 January 1955, who live in Sag Harbor, New York, United States (the US applicants), and A.R., who was born on 24 March 2010 and lives in St. Petersburg. 108.  A.R. was abandoned by her parents, who suffered from substance addictions, at the age of eleven months. She is hepatitis C positive and suffers from a mixed developmental disorder and planovalgus deformity. 109.  The US applicants had two children, a son and a daughter. After their daughter died of paediatric cancer at the age of twelve, they decided to adopt a child, since their son did not wish to be an only child. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in February 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 18 October 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “International Assistance Group, Inc.”. 110.  On 28 November 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.R. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. They visited her twice a day between 27 and 30 November 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 112.  On 10 February 2013 the adoption application was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court by the adoption agency. 113.  On 13 February 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the application on the grounds that, as of 1 January 2013, the agency’s activity had been banned in Russia pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ. 114.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 115.  According to the Government, A.R. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(iv)  Fourth group of applicants 116.  T.L.B.-S., born on 21 June 1968 and who lives in Oldtown, Maryland, United States (the US applicant), and V.O., who was born on 7 August 2005 and lives in St. Petersburg. 117.  V.O. suffers from Down syndrome, mental deficiency, umbilical hernia, planovalgus deformity, atopic dermatitis and hypermetria of a light degree. 118.  The US applicant has two biological children and a son adopted from Russia. She decided to adopt another child and, having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, she was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 1 November 2012. The US applicant was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Small World Adoption Foundation of Missouri Inc.”. 119.  On 12 November 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit V.O. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. She visited her daily on several days in November 2012. Each visit lasted between one and a half and two hours. 121.  According to the US applicant, she did not have sufficient time to prepare all the necessary documents in order to be able to submit the adoption application to a court before the entry into force of Law no. 272‑FZ. After its entry into force she realised that this would be futile, although she remained willing to adopt V.O. 122.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 123.  According to the Government, V.O. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about her.
(v)  Fifth group of applicants 124.  S.M., born on 12 May 1966, and K.M., born on 30 April 1968, who live in Lake Elsinore, California, United States (the US applicants), and V.G., who was born on 19 December 2005 and lives in St. Petersburg. 126.  Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicants were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 9 February 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 127.  On 18 July 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit V.G. They visited her every day between 18 and 20 July 2012. Each visit lasted three hours. 129.   On 26 November 2012 the adoption application was submitted to a court by the US applicants’ representative E.F. from the adoption agency. 130.  According to the Government, on 30 November 2012[5] the St. Petersburg City Court stayed the proceedings and instructed the US applicants to rectify certain shortcomings by 30 December 2012[6]. In particular, they were asked to corroborate the powers of their representative to act as such in matters concerning adoption in view of the fact that the power of attorney had been issued to E.F. as a private person, whereas pursuant to Article 4 § 4 of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption only authorised agencies could act as representatives. On 9 January 2013 the application was returned to E.F. on the grounds that the shortcomings had not been rectified. 131.  According to the US applicants, they were never informed of any alleged shortcomings in their adoption application. Furthermore, several days before 1 January 2013 a judge had called E.F. and had asked her to withdraw the application, even though E.F.’s power of attorney did not authorise her to do so. Several days later E.F. found out that the application had been “lost” and the only record of submission was a note in the court’s register. 132.  The US applicants also allege that on 11 January 2012 the head of a branch of adoption agency “Hand in Hand” had asked the Chairman of the St. Petersburg Committee on Social Policy for permission to continue its activity as an adoption agency in St. Petersburg through its legal representatives E.F. and I.Z. The permission was granted, and on 11 January 2012 the adoption agency “Hand in Hand” issued E.F. with a power of attorney valid for three years to represent the interests of adoptive parents before the courts of St. Petersburg. 133.  According to the Government, the St. Petersburg Committee on Social Policy did not have the competence to authorise the activity of an adoption agency. The matter fell within the exclusive competence of the Ministry of Education. E.F. and I.Z. were registered at the Ministry of Education as employees of the adoption agency “Hand in Hand” during the period 2009-11. 134.  According to the US applicants, on 12 and 28 March and 3 April 2013 their representative O.T. requested a copy of the St. Petersburg City Court’s ruling on their application. However, the file was not in the registry and she was not presented with a copy. On 11 April 2013 O.T. resubmitted her request to Judge G. and the President of the St. Petersburg City Court. In a letter of 16 April 2013 Judge G. refused to provide her with a copy of the ruling. On 22 April 2013 O.T. filed a complaint against the refusal. It is not clear whether the complaint has been examined. 135.  According to the Government, O.T.’s request was refused as there were no procedural means whereby to provide persons acting as intermediaries in adoption proceedings with copies of documents. 136.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 137.  According to the Government, V.G. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about her.
(vi)  Sixth group of applicants 138.  Q.S., born on 8 April 1979, and W.S., born on 6 May 1980, who live in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States (the US applicants), and D.K., who was born on 26 May 2011 and lives in Perm. 139.  D.K. suffers from Down syndrome, psychomotor development delay, anomaly in heart development, partial atrophy of optic discs, astigmatism and cytomegalovirus infection. 140.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in July 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicants were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 11 December 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Global Adoption Services Inc.”. 141.  On 19 December 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit D.K. They visited her twice a day between 19 and 21 December 2012. Each visit lasted approximately two hours. 143.  The adoption application was not submitted to the court. According to the US applicants, it would have been submitted if it had not been for the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 144.  According to the Government, on 24 April 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. According to the US applicants, they were never informed of this fact. 145.  According to the Government, D.K. has been placed with a foster family.
(vii)  Seventh group of applicants 146.  S.A.K., born on 9 May 1960 and who lives in Chicago, Illinois, United States (the US applicant), and K.R., who was born on 31 May 2009 and lives in St. Petersburg. 147.  K.R. suffers from a mixed developmental disorder, planovalgus deformity, adenoids, hypertrophy of palatine tonsils, hepatosplenomegaly and physiological phimosis. 148.  The US applicant has already adopted a girl from Russia. She decided to adopt another child and initiated the adoption procedure in May 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicant was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 9 October 2012. The US applicant was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “International Assistance Group Inc.”. 149.  On 21 November 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit K.R. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. She visited her every day between 21 and 23 November 2012. Each visit lasted two hours. 151.  On 11 February 2013 the adoption application was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court by T. from the adoption agency. 152.  On 13 February 2013 the court returned the application on the grounds that the activity of the adoption agency had been banned pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ. The US applicant appealed. 153.  On 27 March 2013 the appeal statement was returned on the grounds that it had been submitted in breach of procedural rules. In particular, it failed to state whether the US applicant had been provided with a translation of the ruling and her signature had not been certified by a notary. The US applicant filed a complaint against this ruling. 155.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 156.  According to the Government, K.R. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(viii)  Eighth group of applicants 157.  C.B., born on 1 December 1967, and T.B., born on 23 October 1966, who live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States (the US applicants), and A.E.A., who was born on 22 August 2011 and lives in Perm. 158.  A.E.A. suffers from delay of psychomotor and speech development delay, anomaly in heart development, umbilical hernia and had prenatal contact with HIV. 159.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in May 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 6 February 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Adopt a Child”. 160.  On 19 November 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.E.A. They visited her twice a day between 19 and 23 November 2012. Each visit lasted between one and a half and two hours. 161.  The adoption application was not submitted to a court. According to the US applicants, after their visit to Russia in November 2012 they had to amend a number of documents in their adoption file so as to make it conform with the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption. However, Law no. 272‑FZ left them no time to submit the adoption application to a court before its entry into force. 162.  On 24 April 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 163.  According to the Government, A.E.A. has been placed with a foster family.
(ix)  Ninth group of applicants 164.  J.R.V., born on 3 January 1973, and M.L.V., born on 27 May 1973, who live in Aurora, Colorado, United States (the US applicants), and Dz.L., who was born on 13 July 2010 and lives in St. Petersburg. 165.  On 4 April 2014 the US applicants’ representative informed the Court that they wished to withdraw the application.
(e)  Application no. 23890/13 166.  Application no. 23890/13 was lodged on 5 April 2013 by M.W., born on 2 February 1961, and D.W., born on 17 March 1964, who live in Woodstock, Virginia, United States (the US applicants), and M.K., who was born on 21 March 1998 and lives in Chelyabinsk. 167.  M.K. was born prematurely. He suffers, in particular, from Russell‑Silver syndrome, light cognitive disorder, delay of neurological and behavioural development and chronic gastritis. 168.  Between 2001 and 2012 the US applicants were involved in charity work in the Chelyabinsk Region. In particular, they helped with the renovation of an orphanage, where in 2008 they met M.K. 169.  According to the US applicants, having developed a close relationship with M.K., in the winter of 2011-2012 they decided to adopt him and initiated the adoption procedure. They contacted about forty adoption agencies asking for assistance with the procedure. However, their attempts were unsuccessful as no adoption agency worked with the Chelyabinsk Region. For this reason they decided to proceed on their own, although the adoption agency Beacon House Adoption Services agreed to provide them with advice on the procedure. 170.  In March 2012, during a consultation at the Ministry of Social Relations of the Chelyabinsk Region, the US applicants expressed their wish to adopt M.K. According to the US applicants, the ministry confirmed that there were no authorised adoption agencies operating in the Chelyabinsk Region and stated that the US applicants could proceed on their own. At the same time their adoption file was rejected on the grounds that the apostille on certain documents was incorrect and some additional documents were required. 171.  In March 2012 the US applicants twice visited M.K. at the orphanage, with each meeting lasting three hours. 172.  On 30 July 2012 the US applicants submitted to the Ministry of Social Relations of the Chelyabinsk Region a corrected set of documents for the adoption of M.K. 173.  However, on 8 August 2012 the Minister of Social Relations of the Chelyabinsk Region informed the US applicants that, since the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption had been ratified, with effect from 10 August 2012 individual applications for adoption could not be accepted. For this reason he returned their application for non-compliance with the requirements set by Government Decree no. 654 of 4 November 2006 (see paragraph 318 below). 174.  On 17 August 2012 the US applicants contacted the Head of the State databank, who wrongly informed them that the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption had not been ratified and that they could proceed with the adoption procedure on their own. 175.  In a telephone conversation on 20 August 2012 the US applicants told the Ministry of Social Relations of the Chelyabinsk Region about the information received from the Head of the State databank. According to the ministry, it was awaiting official clarifications from the Head of the State databank to this effect. 176.  On 22 August 2012 the US applicants again contacted the Ministry of Social Relations of the Chelyabinsk Region by telephone and were told that they could proceed with the adoption on their own. 177.  On 22 August 2012 according to the US applicants and on 4 September 2012 according to the Government, the adoption file was resubmitted to the Ministry of Social Relations of the Chelyabinsk Region. 178.  On 19 September 2012 the adoption file was returned and the US applicants were requested to amend certain documents and to enclose some additional documents. 179.  On 3 December 2012, having amended the adoption file, the US applicants again resubmitted the application. By that time the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption ‒ including a provision stating that an adoption application might only be submitted through an authorised agency ‒ had entered into force. 180.  On 11 December 2012 the Ministry of Social Relations of the Chelyabinsk Region rejected the application on the grounds that it had been submitted by the US applicants directly and not by an authorised adoption agency. It was recommended that the US applicants re-apply via an agency. 181.  According to the applicants, the adoption procedure was eventually halted by the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 183.  According to the Government, since 1 September 2014 M.K. has been attending the South Urals Vocational School (Южно-Уральский многопрофильный колледж) and lives in the school dormitory.
(f)  Application no. 26309/13 184.  Application no. 26309/13 was lodged on 18 April 2013 by C.Z., born on 29 October 1974, and S.Z., born on 2 October 1976, who live in Simpsonville, South Carolina, United States (the US applicants), and A.K., who was born on 8 November 2008 and lives in Zelenogradsk. 185.  A.K. suffers from psychological developmental disorder, speech development delay, enuresis and dysarthria. A.K. was taken from his home by social workers in August 2011 as he had been neglected and possibly abused by his parents. 186.  The US applicants have previously adopted a boy from Russia. They initiated the procedure for adoption of another child in April 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Adoption Associates Inc.”. 187.  On 15 October 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit A.K. from the Ministry of Education of the Kaliningrad Region. They visited him twice a day between 15 and 19 October 2012. They spent four to five hours per day with A.K. 189.  According to the Government, the US applicants never made an application to a court for A.K.’s adoption. 190.  According to the US applicants, they submitted the adoption application to the Kaliningrad Town Court, and the hearing was scheduled for 17 January 2013. On 28 December 2012 they were informed that the hearing had been cancelled due to the adoption of Law no. 272-FZ. 191.  On 30 April 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 192.  According to the Government, A.K. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(g)  Application no. 27161/13 193.  Application no. 27161/13 was lodged on 11 April 2013 by S.S., born on 13 March 1978, and G.S. born on 30 January 1982, who live in Shirley, New York[7], United States (the US applicants), and E.O., who was born on 14 September 2009 and lives in Perm. 194.  E.O. is HIV positive. She suffers from speech development delay, slight anomaly in heart development, atopic dermatitis, vegetative dysfunction of the Keith-Flack node and planovalgus deformity. 195.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in March 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 6 September 2012. 196.  On 6 September 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit E.O. from the Ministry of Education of the Perm Region. They visited her twice a day between 6 and 12 September 2012. Each visit lasted approximately two hours. 197.  On 10 September 2012 the US applicants formally agreed to adopt E.O. They were not assisted by any adoption agencies. 199.  According to the US applicants, the adoption application had been finalised by 28 December 2012. However, the procedure was halted by the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 200.  On 24 April 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 201.  According to the Government, E.O. has been adopted by a different adoptive family. According to the US applicants, her adoptive parents are not Russian nationals either, and in 2013 E.O. was taken to Ireland.
(h)  Application no. 29197/13 202.  Application no. 29197/13 was lodged on 29 April 2013 by C.M.S., born on 27 February 1967 and who lives in New York, NY, United States (the US applicant), and A.N., who was born on 9 December 2011 and lives in St. Petersburg. 203.  At birth A.N.’s umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, which led to a number of complications. He suffers from congenital heart disease, open foramen oval; congenital renal disease, pyelectasis; mixed psychological development disorder and motor and speech development delay. 204.  The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in early 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicant was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 15 November 2012. The US applicant was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Adopt a Child Inc.”. 205.  On 19 December 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit A.N. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. She visited him twice a day between 19 and 21 December 2012. Each visit lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. 207.  On 18 February 2013 an adoption application dated 9 January 2012 was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court by D. acting on the basis of a power of attorney. 208.  On 19 February 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court returned the application without examination on the grounds that the power of attorney had been issued to D. as a private person whereas, pursuant to Article 4 § 4 of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, only authorised agencies were permitted to act as representatives. No appeal was lodged against the ruling. 209.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 210.  According to the Government, A.N. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(i)  Application no. 32224/13 211.  Application no. 32224/13 was lodged on 13 May 2013 by R.K.B., born on 21 December 1969, and T.B., born on 7 December 1973, who live in Wetumpka, Alabama, United States (the US applicants), and V.B., who was born on 3 March 2012 and lives in Volgograd. 212.  V.B. suffers from a motor dysfunction, psychological development disorder, heart defects such as open oval window and lesion of the mitral valve, and had prenatal contact with hepatitis C. 213.  The US applicants have previously adopted a girl from Kazakhstan. In September 2011 they initiated the procedure to adopt another child from Russia. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 27 June 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Christian World Adoption Inc.”. 214.  On 13 December 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit V.B. from the Ministry of Education of the Volgograd Region. They visited her twice daily between 14 and 20 December 2012. Each visit lasted approximately two hours. 216.  The adoption application was never submitted to a court. According to the US applicants, the adoption procedure was halted by the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 217.  On 30 January 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 218.  According to the Government, V.B. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(j)  Application no. 32331/13 219.  Application no. 32331/13 was lodged on 16 May 2013 by D.M.L., born on 25 February 1972, and De.M.L., born on 7 November 1968, who live in Omaha, Nebraska, United States (the US applicants), and R.P., who was born on 19 February 2012 and lives in Vladivostok. 220.  R.P. was born prematurely. He suffers from prenatal encephalopathy of anoxic-ischemic genesis, a light anomaly in heart development in the form of an additional chord of the left heart ventricle, and narrowing of palpebral fissure. 221.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in January 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 20 November 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Beacon House Adoption Services, Inc.”. 222.  On 17 December 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit R.P. They visited him daily between 17 and 21 December 2012. Each visit lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. 223.  The US applicants formally agreed to adopt R.P. However, according to the Government, they had not signed the statement confirming that they had studied his medical file. Therefore, the subsequent steps set out in Government Decree no. 217 of 4 April 2002 prior to submission of an adoption application to a court were not taken. In particular, no confirmation was received from the State databank that the child was available for adoption. 225.  On 31 July 2013 the US applicants were removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 226.  On 31 October 2013 the US applicants filed a complaint against the Directorate of Education and Science of the Primorye Region and the Administration of the Primorye Region to the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok. They claimed that the defendants had prevented them from finalising the adoption procedure. 227.  On 5 November 2013 the complaint was returned without examination on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 228.  On 18 November 2013 the US applicants’ representative D. resubmitted the complaint to the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok. 229.  On 19 December 2013 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the complaint, having found that the US applicants’ removal from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents was compliant with Law no. 272-FZ. The US applicants appealed. 231.  According to the Government, R.P. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(k)  Application no. 32351/13 232.  Application no. 32351/13 was lodged on 16 May 2013 by J.F.B., born on 24 October 1966 and who lives in Boston, Massachusetts, United States (the US applicant), and M.I. who was born on 18 April 2011 and lives in Vsevolzhsk, the Leningrad Region. 233.  M.I. was born prematurely and suffers from speech and psychomotor development delay, internal hydrocephalus, and a congenital heart defect. 234.  The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in July 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, she was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 19 September 2012. The US applicant was assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Adopt a Child Inc.”. 235.  On 8 October 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit M.I. She visited her every day between 8 and 12 October 2012. Each visit lasted between an hour and a half and two hours. 236.  On 9 October 2012 according to the US applicant and on 11 October 2012 according to the Government, the US applicant formally agreed to adopt M.I. 237.  On 19 December 2012 the US applicant submitted the adoption application to the Leningrad Regional Court. 238.  On 25 December 2012 the Leningrad Regional Court stayed the proceedings due to certain shortcomings in the documents submitted. In particular, on the certificate confirming that the US applicant had undergone the requisite training for prospective adoptive parents, her middle name was not indicated, causing the court to express doubts as to whether the certificate had actually been issued to her. In addition, the validity of the certificate confirming her living conditions had expired on 7 November 2012 and she therefore needed to renew it. Moreover, the application did not contain any information about M.I.’s father and siblings, if any; the medical certificate detailing M.I.’s state of health failed to include the opinions of certain doctors; information about the US applicant’s income was not accurate; and a document corroborating the US applicant’s housing rights was not attached. The court instructed the US applicant to rectify the shortcomings by 28 February 2013. According to the Government, the above decision was not appealed against and became final on 2 February 2013. 239.  On 17 January 2013 the Leningrad Regional Court discontinued the adoption proceedings and returned the application without examination on the grounds that, pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ, the US applicant did not have a right to adopt M.I. According to the US applicant, she appealed. It is not clear whether the appeal was examined. 240.  On 15 February 2013 the US applicant was removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. According to the Government, she was informed of this on 30 May 2013. According to the US applicant, she never received any information to this effect. 241.  According to the Government, M.I. has been adopted by a different adoptive family. According to the US applicant, M.I.’s adoptive parents are not Russian nationals either.
(l)  Application no. 32368/13 242.  Application no. 32368/13 was lodged on 16 May 2013 by L.A.P., born on 3 March 1966, and J.N.T., born on 5 August 1971, who live in Long Beach, NY, United States (the US applicants), and K.K., who was born on 24 August 2010 and lives in St. Petersburg. 243.  K.K. was abandoned at birth by her mother, who was a drug addict. She suffers from mixed psychological disorders and hypotrophy of the first degree. 244.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 16 August 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “New Hope Christian Services”. 245.  On 20 February 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit K.K. from the Committee on Social Policy of the St Petersburg Administration. They visited her every day between 21 and 23 February 2012. Each visit lasted approximately two hours. 248.  On 12 November 2012 the St. Petersburg City Court stayed the proceedings on the grounds that certain documents were not enclosed and instructed the US applicants to submit them by 11 December 2012. At the US applicants’ request, the deadline was subsequently extended to 15 January 2013. According to the US applicants, after the entry into force of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, they had to comply with additional requirements introduced by the Agreement. Later they also had to provide proof that their house had not been affected by Hurricane Sandy, which hit the north-eastern United States in October 2012. 249.  On 15 January 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court returned the application without examination on the grounds that the additional documents submitted by the applicants were not complete. In particular, the section of the report on the US applicants’ living conditions containing the date and signature had not been translated. A photograph of the child’s room was not informative. Moreover, there were no photographs of the US applicants with K.K., and a document confirming that the US applicants had undergone the requisite training for prospective adoptive parents had not been enclosed. No appeal was lodged against this ruling. 251.  On 23 May 2013 St. Petersburg City Court returned the application without examination on the grounds that it had been submitted by a private person acting on the US applicants’ behalf, whereas pursuant to virtue of Article 4 § 4 of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption it could only be submitted by an authorised agency. The US applicants appealed. 252.  On 20 June 2013 St. Petersburg City Court returned the appeal statement without examination, making reference to Law no. 272-FZ. 253.  On 31 May 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 254.  According to the Government, K.K. has been adopted by a different adoptive family.
(m)  Application no. 37173/13 255.  Application no. 37173/13 was lodged on 7 June 2013 by J.W.H., born on 29 July 1981, A.M.H., born on 18 March 1969 (the US applicants) and G.N.Y.H., born on 3 December 2008, who live in Smartsville, California, United States, and V.B., who was born on 14 November 2001 and lives in Prokopyevsk. 256.  V.B. suffers from light mental development delay, light speech development delay and a mixed form of dysgraphia and dyslexia. 257.  On 5 July 2010 the US applicants adopted the third applicant, G.N.Y.H. As a result of what appears to be a clerical mistake, the information about her siblings had not been included in the State databank. 258.  According to the Government, the information regarding G.N.Y.H.’s brother, V.B., had been included in G.N.Y.H.’s file, however, and the US applicants had studied this in March 2010. 259.  In the decision of the Kemerovo Region Court of 5 July 2010 on G.N.Y.H.’s adoption it was stated that although G.N.Y.H. had an elder brother, V.B., the court considered it possible for G.N.Y.H. to be adopted alone because the children were being placed in different institutions, their family relations had been interrupted, and the adoption was in the interests of G.N.Y.H. 260.  According to the US applicants, having learned that G.N.Y.H. had a brother, they started corresponding with V.B. and sent him letters, photos and parcels. They also started making enquiries with a view to adopting V.B. as well. In a letter of 29 April 2011 the prosecutor’s office of the Kemerovo Region advised the US applicants that, as they had been registered as the prospective adoptive parents in respect of one particular child, they would have to reapply to the competent authorities and resubmit documents amended accordingly should they wish to adopt another child. In a letter of 15 June 2011 the same prosecutor’s office acknowledged that the information on G.N.Y.H.’s siblings had not been included in the State databank as a result of a clerical mistake. It noted, however, that the information about V.B. had been included in G.N.Y.H.’s personal file, which the US applicants had studied on 24 March 2010. The prosecutor’s office also confirmed that V.B. was available for adoption and that it was open to the US applicants to apply to the competent authorities for his adoption. The US applicants then initiated the adoption procedure. 261.  On 12 May 2012 “Hand in Hand”, an authorised adoption agency acting on behalf of the US applicants, filed an application for V.B.’s adoption with the Directorate of Education and Science of the Kemerovo Region. On the same date the US applicants were registered in the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 262.  According to the Government, the US applicants had initially intended to visit V.B. in June 2012, but they asked if they might change the dates of their visit to October 2012. However, they did not reapply for a later visit. Accordingly, they were never issued with a referral to visit V.B. and never met him. 263.   According to the US applicants, at the relevant time they had also applied to adopt another child from Russia, X., and they had accepted a referral to visit her in June 2012. They then also received a referral to visit V.B. in June 2012. Although they were willing to meet both children, they were advised that it was necessary to finalise the adoption of X. first. Accordingly, they asked for permission to visit V.B. in October 2012. However, they were subsequently advised that in July 2012 the regional authorities had banned the adoption of children by US nationals following an incident of ill-treatment of a child from the Kemerovo Region by his adoptive parents from the United States. 264.  In December 2012, when the US applicants went to Russia to finalise the adoption of X., they learned that the regional ban on adoption of children by US nationals had been lifted. However, the US applicants were unable to proceed with the adoption of V.B. due to the entry into force of the Law no. 272-FZ. 266.  Application no. 38490/13 was lodged on 12 June 2013 by A.B., born on 24 July 1964 and who lives in Bellevue, Nebraska[8], United States (the US applicant), and Ye.L., who was born on 23 July 2009 and lives in Novosibirsk. 267.  Ye.L. was born prematurely. He suffers from hearing loss, speech development delay and respiratory ailments. 268.  The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in 2008. As the adoption agency’s licence was later revoked, she had to restart the procedure in 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicant was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on 25 June 2012. 269.  On 19 July 2012 the US applicant obtained a referral to visit Ye.L. She visited him on four consecutive days in July 2012. 271.  According to the US applicant, preparation of an adoption file took more time after the entry into force of the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, which stipulated a number of additional requirements. The adoption application was ultimately not submitted to a court due to the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 272.  On 10 June 2013 the US applicant was informed that she had been removed from the State databank as a prospective adoptive parent. 273.  According to the Government, Ye.L. has been placed with a foster family.
(o)  Application no. 42340/13 274.  Application no. 42340/13 was lodged on 30 June 2013 by M.B., born on 28 December 1966, and D.B., born on 9 November 1968, who live in Alabaster, Alabama, United States (the US applicants), and K.S., who was born on 29 November 2005 and lives in St. Petersburg. 275.  K.S. suffers from psychological development delay, atopic dermatitis, planovalgus deformity and a phonematic disorder. 276.  Between 13 December 2010 and 17 January 2011 K.S. stayed at the US applicants’ home as a part of the orphan-hosting programme “New Horizons for Children”. 277.   As soon as K.S. had left, the US applicants started making enquiries about adoption. In March 2011 they started the adoption procedure. 278.  On 20 February 2012 the US applicants were registered in the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 279.  After 2011, the US applicants met with K.S. on three occasions. Each time they came to St. Petersburg for a week and visited K.S. daily. Each visit lasted from two to three hours. 280.  According to the Government, on 13 December 2011 the US applicants submitted the application for K.S.’s adoption to the St. Petersburg City Court. As certain documents were not enclosed, the proceedings were stayed and the US applicants were instructed to submit the documents requested by 10 January 2012. The term was then extended to 9 February 2012. As the US applicants failed to submit the documents, on the latter date the adoption application was returned to them without examination. No appeal was lodged against this ruling. 281.  According to the US applicants, in November-December 2011 and February-March 2012 they had travelled to Russia as they wished to adopt K.S. and her younger brother. It transpired that they were unable to go ahead with the adoption because, although K.S.’s mother’s parental rights had been revoked, the revocation of her father’s parental rights was pending but not yet finalised. This issue was resolved in March 2012. However, in April 2012 the US applicants were informed that K.S.’s biological mother had had a baby girl, and that K.S. thus had two siblings. In May 2012 they amended the adoption file so as to apply for adoption of three children: K.S. and both her brother and sister. In September 2012 they were obliged to comply with additional requirements introduced by the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, which included additional training courses. The adoption procedure was ultimately halted by the entry into force of Law no. 272-FZ. 282.  According to the Government, K.S. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about her.
(p)  Application no. 42403/13 283.  Application no. 42403/13 was lodged on 30 June 2013 by M.M., born on 20 September 1974, and J.M., born on 9 August 1976, who live in Westminster, MD, United States (the US applicants), A.M., who was born on 11 June 2002 and lives in Furmanov, the Ivanovo Region, and D.T., who was born on 22 October 2002 and lives in Kineshma, the Ivanovo Region. 284.  A.M. and D.T. are not related. Their parents have been stripped of parental rights. D.T. suffers from mitral heart prolapse, residual encephalopathy, mixed disorder of psychological development and gallbladder anomaly. A.M. had been adopted at the age of five years old but was then returned to the orphanage. She suffers from a mixed disorder of psychological development and light myopia. 285.  The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on 11 April 2012. They were assisted by the authorised adoption agency “Hand in Hand”. 286.  On 13 September 2012 the US applicants obtained a referral to visit both A.M. and D.T. from the Department of Social Security of the Ivanovo Region so as to choose between the two girls. They visited D.T. twice and A.M. three times in September 2012 and eventually decided to adopt both girls. 287.  On 27 September 2012 the US applicants formally agreed to adopt A.M. and D.T. According to the US applicants, A.M. and D.T. met and bonded. 289.  On 6 November 2012 the Ivanovo Regional Court stayed the proceedings on the grounds that certain documents, such as confirmation of the US applicants’ registration in the State databank and the girls’ entry permits for the United States, were not enclosed. It instructed the US applicants to submit the documents requested by 27 November 2012. 291.  On 4 December 2012 the Ivanovo Regional Court returned the adoption application without examination on the grounds that the US applicants had failed to provide the documents requested. 293.  On 18 December 2012 the Ivanovo Regional Court stayed the proceedings on the grounds that some of the enclosed documents did not satisfy the procedural requirements. In particular, (i) although the US applicants had submitted a property certificate concerning a plot of land, it did not provide sufficient information about their dwelling; (ii) the attestation of the US applicants’ suitability to become adoptive parents had been issued more than a year previously and was therefore outdated; and (iii) medical opinion concerning the US applicants’ state of health did not satisfy the Ministry of Health requirements. The US applicants were instructed to rectify these shortcomings by 10 January 2013. 294.  On 9 January 2013 the Ivanovo Regional Court rejected the application on the grounds that, pursuant to Law no. 272-FZ, the US applicants did not have a right to adopt A.M. and D.T. The US applicants appealed. 295.  On 4 February 2013 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the ruling of 9 January 2013 on appeal. The US applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. 296.  On 17 April 2013 the Presidium of the Ivanovo Regional Court rejected the appeal on points of law. 297.  On 25 April 2013 the US applicants were informed that they had been removed from the State databank as prospective adoptive parents. 298.  According to the Government, A.M. is still available for adoption, and the competent authorities provide prospective adoptive parents looking for a child with information about them. D.T. has been placed with a foster family.