Legal Proceedings

Rule of Law à la Belarus
Rule of Law à la Belarus-Alice in Wonderland

Chronology - The Hague Case Process

PM: To Attorneys, Professionals in the Legal Field, Students, NGOs, Media, and other Professionals interested in the Litigation Documents:

Please feel free to request copies of the following litigation documentation in English or Russian. Just fill out the form (Contact Us) with your request, and the team AACA will send it to you by Email within 48 hours. Used date format: Year-Month-Day ISO 8601.

For your reference:

Legal Analysis of The Hague Case

The Chronology of The Hague Case Process follows below.

01. 2017-04-25 Ministry of Foreign Affairs SW

Hague Applications submitted by me to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sweden for Anthie’ & Alexandra Cheropoulou 2017-04-25.

2017-04-25 Ministry of Foreign Affairs SW – Application Form Hague EN -ANTHOULA, ANTHIE’ CHEROPOULOU

 

2017-04-25 Ministry of Foreign Affairs SW – Application Form Hague EN -ALEXANDRA CHEROPOULOU  

02. 2017-05-10 Mr. A.A. Alyoshin Central Organization BY

The International Cooperation Department in Belarus, Mr. Alyoshin (Алешин Алексей Алексеевич) confirms in English receipt of my electronic applications (with annexes) for the return of my children, Anthie & Alexandra Cheropoulou under The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 

In his statement was written that they were able to confirm the mother’s whereabouts in the Republic of Belarus! Mr. Alyoshin also informed his counterpart in Sweden that according to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, parental abduction is not recognized as a criminal offense in Belarus.

 

Sweden accepted this confirmation without any slightest reaction. First of all, as a contracting state, Belarus is obliged to give this contact information to their counterpart in Sweden so that I, as the left-behind parent, can proceed with further judicial actions. Secondly, the abduction was committed in Sweden and not in Belarus, i.e., Belarussian laws were not applicable in this case, but nobody in Sweden reacted to those statements from Belarus, although I strongly protested!

 

Explanation;

In his generosity, Mr. Alyoshin also advised his counterpart in Sweden to kindly inform (Cheropoulos) the applicant about the possibility of mediation, which is, however, available not only at a pre-trial stage, but also throughout the judicial proceedings and does not affect his right to litigate if he prefers. If the applicant agrees to start the mediation procedure, he can contact the law office “Law and Family Mediation” , specializing in mediation in family matters (http://s-pravo.by/o-nas/advokaty Telephone: +375 17 219 48 30).

 

There is a catch here, which I find out after a while, the generous Mr. Alyoshin tries to guide me to the mediocre Law Office the mother of my children cooperates to sue me for alimony in Belarus. Was this a coincidence? I leave it to the Audience to judge! 

2017-05-10 EN CONFIRM. Hague Convention Central Authorities Belarus

 

2017-05-10 RU CONFIRM. Hague Convention Central Authorities Belarus

03. 2017-06-28 A.D. (Attorney in charge) BY

Filled combined lawsuit under The Hauge Convention regarding Child Abduction and contra claim regarding the rejection of Trafimovich custody claim filled on the 27th of April 2017.
Explanation;

Trafimovich proceeded in a lawsuit against Cheropoulos as soon she arrived in Belarus on 2017-04-18, lawsuit submitted 2017-04-27, which resulted in Anthie’ and Alexandra being forbidden to travel without the explicit permission of Trafimovich when the decision was taken later in Oct. 2017 which granted her Custody & Alimony under the Belarussian legislation, ignoring The Hague Convention completely. This decision was considered illegal and unlawful and was canceled with Court Decree 2018-05-16.

 

2017-06-08 SW Statement and confirmation from nursery school Melissaki with STAMP

 

2017-06-08 EN Statement and confirmation from nursery school Melissaki with STAMP

 

2017-06-08 RU Statement and confirmation from nursery school Melissaki with STAMP

 

2017-06-28 EN SUBMITTED HAGUE CLAIM & Counterclaim on Trafimovich Custody Claim

 

2017-06-28 RU SUBMITTED HAGUE CLAIM & Counterclaim on Trafimovich Custody Claim

04. 2017-08-10 & 2017-08-11 A.D. (Attorney in charge) BY

Preliminary Court proceedings regarding The Hauge Claim and the contra claim to reject/suspend Trafimovich’s lawsuit against Cheropoulos. I physically participated in the proceedings.
Explanation;

Judge Berulia favored Trafimovich from the beginning and accepted her verbal statements without questioning them, and I was ignored! The court decided those final court proceedings on my Hague Claim to be held on the 23rd of August 2017.

05. 2017-08-23 A.D. (Attorney in charge)

Final proceeding on my Hauge Claim. In a preventive way of thinking, I had submitted 3 witnesses attests with Apostille from Notarious Publicus in Sweden, translated into the Russian language. I physically participated in the proceedings.
Explanation;

Judge Berulia start to read the witness attests from Sweden, especially from Anthie’s God Mother Sofia Mindouri, she was very frustrated and suddenly grabbed all the documents on her desk and left the courtroom with obvious irritation/anger! She returned after about 75-80 minutes and announced her decision to suspend the proceedings because of the incompetence of the court to decide under the provisions of The Hauge Convention regarding Child Abduction. This was a clear violation and denial of justice! This was the moment the fundament of Judge Berulia’s strategical planning was given birth, to deny the return of my children with corrupt judicial methods. 

 

Verdict:

Written court decision dated 2017-08-23. The court adopted a ruling on the termination of proceedings in the case of the return of children due to lack of jurisdiction. The ruled decision was full of contradictions, all legal expertise from Belarus and Internationally agreed to that. Judge Berulia invented the wheel!

 

2017-08-18 1. SW Witness Attest S.M, Godmother of Anthie’ (send for transl.)

 

2017-08-23 EN Decision-Decree From Court to reject my Hague Claim submitted 2017-06-28

 

2017-08-23 RU Decision-Decree From Court to reject my Hague Claim submitted 2017-06-28

 

2017-08-23 SW Decision-Decree From Court to reject my Hague Claim submitted 2017-06-28 

06. 2017-08-29 A.D. (Attorney in charge)

“Minsk City Court”, submitted Cassation appeal regarding the decision ruled 2017-08-23 to reject The Hague Convention regarding Child Abduction. 

We believe that the ruling, which prevents further consideration of the case is illegal due to misuse by the court of material and procedural law, proceeding from the following.

 

Legal justification. In accordance with paragraph 2 Article 401 of the Civil Procedure Code the judgment is illegal due to the incorrect application of the legal provisions subject to application by the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Minsk. Paragraph 3 of Article 403 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that the incorrect application of legal provisions by the court is also an incorrect interpretation of a regulatory act. 

 

The cooperation competence of the authorities of the States Parties in the consideration of this category of cases is strictly differentiated by the provisions of the Convention. 
Explanation;

Cassation appeal to abolish the decision of the Oktyabrsky district (first instance) court regarding the termination of the proceedings of Nicolas Cheropoulos lawsuit against Trafimovich Lyudmila Arkadievna regarding the return of children, according to the 1980 Convention on Civil Aspects of International Abduction of Children in and completely resolve the dispute on the merits, satisfying the lawsuit requirements.

 

2017-08-29 EN Submitted Cassation Appeal to Minsk City Court on the Decision-Decree 23.08.2017 to reject my HAGUE CLAIM

 

2017-08-29 RU Submitted Cassation Appeal to Minsk City Court on the Decision-Decree 23.08.2017 to reject my HAGUE CLAIM

 

2017-10-07 EN Request from Lawyer to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sweden regarding OBSERVER! Gmail – Hague Conv. 1980 – Child Abduct (send for transl.)

 

2017-10-07 RU Request from Lawyer to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sweden regarding OBSERVER! Gmail – Hague Conv. 1980 – Child Abduct   

07. 2017-09-13 A.D. (Attorney in charge) BY

2017-06-28 Submitted combined lawsuit under The Hague Convention regarding Child Abduction and Contra Claim regarding the rejection of Trafimovich Lawsuit regarding Custody Claim filled on the 27th of April 2017.
Explanation;

Motion and amendment to appeal against Trafimovich’s lawsuit from 2017-04-27 on the determination of the residence/custody of underage children, alimony of 33%, and the determination of a different procedure for the children leaving the Republic of Belarus. Contra Claim regarding the rejection of Trafimovich Lawsuit submitted by her on the 27th of April 2017, was already submitted on the 28th of June 2017 by me.

 

Ms. Trafimovich managed to submit a lawsuit against me in 9 days. She and her representatives are worth mentioning in the Guinness World Records Book for their achievements.

 

APPEAL AGAINST THE LAWSUIT on the determination of the residence of underage children, the recovery of alimony, and the determination of a different procedure for leaving the Republic of Belarus.

 

I appeal to terminate the proceedings on the case of the residence of minor children, the recovery of alimony, and on the determination of a different procedure for the departure of minor children from the Republic of Belarus because of the lack of competence/jurisdiction of the Court to consider the dispute on the merits of custody of Children (Article 19 of the Convention). 

 

2017-09-13 EN Motion-Petition on L.T. Custody Claim submitted 2017.04.27 regarding Custody, residency, alimony & different procedure for exit BY

 

2017-09-13 RU Motion-Petition on L.T. Custody Claim submitted 2017.04.27 regarding Custody, residency, alimony & different procedure for exit BY (send for translation)     

08. 2017-10-16 A.D. (Attorney in charge)

“Minsk City Court”, second Instance: Proceedings of Cassation appeal filled 2017-08-29 regarding the wrongful decision taken 2017-08-23 to reject The Hauge Convention lawsuit regarding Child Abduction. 

We believe that the ruling, which prevents further consideration of the case is illegal due to misuse by the court of material, procedural law, and proceedings under the merits of The Hauge Convention. I was physically present in the court.

 

Written court decision dated 2017-10-16 on Case 33-3963/ 2017. Rejection of my appeal/complaint without satisfying it.

 

Explanation;

The court, having established that the lawsuit filled, by the plaintiff is not liable consideration in civil proceedings, therefore, reasonably terminated the proceedings because of lack of jurisdiction. In view of the above, the arguments of a private complaint do not entail the cancellation determination of the court. The judicial board considers the complaint not grounded, therefore there are no justifications to satisfy the Cassation appeal and rejects it!

 

2017-10-16 EN Decision&Motivation from Minsk City Court to reject my CASSATION Appeal submitted 2017-08-29

 

2017-10-16 RU Decision&Motivation from Minsk City Court to reject my CASSATION Appeal submitted 2017-08-29

09. 2017-12-29 L.A. (Attorney in charge November 2017)

“Public Prosecutor”, Appeal by way of supervision in the definition of the court of Oktyabrsky District of Minsk dated August 23, 2017, and the definition of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court on October 16, 2017.

My Appeal was pending at the office of the Public Prosecutor since the end of December 2017.  A notification was sent on the 8th of February 2018 regarding an incomplete application! My “Supervisory Appeal” was accepted 2018-04-25 by a decision from the Public Prosecutor Mr. S. K. Khmaruk regarding The Hague Case and a protest was sent to be considered at Minsk City Court! We were notified about it on 2018-05-02.

 

Explanation;

Complaint by way of supervision on the definition of the court of Oktyabrsky district of Minsk dated August 23, 2017, and the definition of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of October 16, 2017.

 

The court of the Oktyabrsky district of Minsk, by its decision of August 23, 2017, terminated, in connection with the lack of jurisdiction of the court, the case of my lawsuit against Trafimovich on the return of children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 (hereinafter – the Convention).

 

The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court based on the consideration of my Cassation Appeal by its decision of October 16, 2017 upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, and my complaint – without satisfaction.

 

I consider the judgments made by the courts to be illegal and unjustified and subject to cancellation in connection with the following. Article 448 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus (“the Code of Civil Procedure”) provides that grounds for cancellation of judicial decisions by way of supervision of judicial decisions are their unreasonableness or material violations of substantive or procedural law.

#Groundlessness of the appealed judicial decisions;

 

#Material violation of substantive and procedural law;

 

#Practice of application of the Convention in contiguous states;

 

#Practice of other courts of the Republic of Belarus;

 

“The judicial decrees cannot be recognized as legal and consistent, they are subject to reversal based on the following. The court of the first instance when terminating the proceedings in the case in view of its lack of jurisdiction and the judicial panel leaving the judgment of the court unchanged indicated that the Hague Convention did not provide for the consideration of disputes over an illegal removal or retention, as well as a return of minor children to the state of their permanent residence in the course of civil proceedings”. 

2017-12-29 EN Hague Case Complaint by way of supervision against decision 2017-08-23 & 2017-10-16 from Minsk City Court (Google)

 

2017-12-29 RU Hague Case Complaint by way of supervision against decision 2017-08-23 & 2017-10-16 from Minsk City Court (send for translation)

 

2018-05-02 EN Protest & Decision of acceptance of Hague complaint from Public Prosecutor 25-04-2018 No. 44-г-78

 

2018-05-02 RU Protest & Decision of acceptance of Hague complaint from Public Prosecutor 25-04-2018 No. 44-г-78

10. 2018-05-16 L.A. (Attorney in charge) & The Greek Consul

2018-05-16 L.A. and the Greek Honorary Consul in Belarus as Observer by initiative of Attorney Martha Poni

Acceptance of the Public Prosecutor protest/complaint regarding the wrongful/illegal decision regarding decision on my Hague Case. This was by the way, the only time we had a small victory in the Belarussian Courts, and this because the Greek Honorary Consul participated as an observer. The Greek Consul has dual citizenship (Belarusian also), well respected and with huge financial surface in Belarus with his Enterprise. 

 

Explanation;

In some way however, the Law Office representing Ms. Trafimovich, managed to take  him of the stage and he was unwilling to support me with his presence as an Observer after May 16, 2018! Later on I found out that he received a letter of complaint/protest from Ms. Trafimovich which was to well written to be from herself. When Ms. Trafimovich also told me in one of our meetings and with happiness in her face; “We fixed your Greek Consul” I stopped to have any doubts about why the Greek Honorary Consul was unwilling to participate as an Observer! Huge questions were raised about the methods used by the Law Office Ms. Trafimovich was using and the connections they had with the Belarussian authorities and high ranked officials!

 

My Appeal was satisfied with decision taken by Minsk City Court on the 16th of May 2018. The Greek Consul participated as observer. Important to read the arguments of the Prosecutor which later on was completely ignored in my  ongoing legal battle.

Case No. 44-Г-78-2018 sent back to Court of first instance. 

 

DECREED:

To cancel the ruling of the Oktyabrsky District Court in Minsk of 23 August 2017 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Minsk City Court of 16 October 2017 in the case involving the lawsuit by Nikolas Cheropoulos against Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich for the return of the minor children to the place of their habitual residence.

 

The case shall be sent to a new trial by a court of first instance.

Presiding Judge   Signature   P. I. Korshunovich

 

2018-05-21 ΕΝ Minsk City Court Decree No. 44-Γ-78 Regarding Hague Decision 2017-08-23 & 2017-10-16

 

2018-05-21 RU Minsk City Court Decree No. 44-Γ-78 Regarding Hague Decision 2017-08-23 & 2017-10-16  

11. 2018-06-05 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

From the 5th of June 2018, I am represented by A.K. and the legal team of Arzinger Law Firm. Managed to postpone the planned hearing on my Hague case together with my interpreter O.K., having in hands valuable instructions from the legal team of Arzinger Law Firm. This is the only Law Firm who have shown dedication, responsibility and engagement in the legal battle for my children, without overcharging me and without being afraid to stand up for my legal rights in the court rooms of the Judicial Corrupt State of Belarus.
Explanation; 

Urgent visit to Minsk between the dates 3rd to 5th of June 2018 to change representative and attempt to postpone the planned Hague case hearing on the 5th of June 2018. Undersigned contract/agreement with Arzinger Law Firm. My previous representative L.A. sent confidential information to Ms. Trafimovich, the Abductor!

 

At the airport in Minsk on the 5th of June, o my way to get on my flight to Stockholm, Ms. Trafimovich phoned me around 12:45 to inform me that our children will go thru a psychological survey on the 6th of June!! On the question who ordered this examination, I was given the answer that the judge, Ms. Berulia did! When I told Ms. Trafimovich that this is an illegal action and its not recognized or accepted by International law, because our children are too young, she closed the phone.

 

It was obvious what kind of methods and strategies the Judge & Representatives of Ms. Trafimovich planned to use! Thus, later on, it was obvious that the results from this Psychological Survey of my children, didn’t went out completely as Ms. Trafimovich team was expecting. This, despite the heavy manipulation and Alienation they were exposed to!
I went back to Minsk on the 8th of June 2018 in my attempt to celebrate Anthie’s birthday the same day.

 

2018-06-06 EN Anthie’ Psych. Survey Binder1

 

2018-06-06 EN Alexandra Psych. Survey Binder1

 

2018-06-06 RU Anthie’ Psych. Survey Binder1

 

2018-06-06 RU Alexandra Psych. Survey Binder1 

12. 2018-06-26 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

My Hague case was meant to be processed but was postponed for reasons we suspected with very short notice. It was postponed 2 times already after the 5th of June and most likely the reasons was related to the results of the Psychological Survey of my Children! 

Submitted Motion with Additional Explanations to my Initial Hague Claim filed 2017-06-28

 

“To the statement of claim for the return of underage children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. By the decision of the Presidium of the Minsk City Court No. 44-G-78-2018 of May 21, 2018, the decision of the Oktyabrsky district court and the Civil Chamber of the Minsk city court to refuse the claim for the return of underage children was revoked and the case was sent for a new examination”.

 

“We support all our claims in full, and taking into account that consideration of this case lasts more than a year, we believe it possible to additionally present theses and provide written explanations that are grounds for satisfying the statement of claim for the return of underage children in accordance with the Convention on Civil Aspects of International abduction of children in 1980.
Explanation;

I was physically present but have to leave on the 28th of June 2018. The Swedish Ambassador was also present for the hearing to participate as Observer but have to leave.

 

2018-06-22 EN Submitted Amendment to the 2nd consideration of Hague claim connected with the initial Claim filled 2017-06-28

 

2018-06-22 RU Submitted Amendment to the 2nd consideration of Hague claim connected with the initial Claim filled 2017-06-28

13. 2018-07-11 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

My Hague case was finally processed and the Swedish Ambassador was present as an Observer at the court together with me and my representative E.M. I left Minsk on the 12 of June 2018. The hearings this day was about anything else except the “Hague Case”. Ms. Trafimovich Lawyer, with the acceptance of the Judge, tried to lead the process into a political case far away from the essence of the “The Hague Convention” principals and transform the process into a simple civil law issue under the domestic legislation. Observer from the Swedish Mission in Belarus, was present!

My Attorney, EM and I was consequently ignored by the Judge despite our loudest protests which is described in the “Observers Report”!

 

The Ambassadors report:

From: xx
Sent: 12 juli 2018

 

2018-07-12 SW FORWARDED Gmail 2018.08.22 (to me) from the Swedish Ambassador in BY to the MFA of Sweden Confidential

 

2018-07-12 RU FORWARDED Gmail 2018.08.22 (to me) from the Swedish Ambassador in BY to the MFA of Sweden Confidential

 

2018-07-18 EN Motivation to Decision from the 12th of July 2018 to reject my Hague Claim for the 2nd time

 

2018-07-18 RU Motivation to Decision from the 12th of July 2018 to reject my Hague Claim for the 2nd time

 

2018-07-18 GR Motivation to Decision from the 12th of July 2018 to reject my Hague Claim for the 2nd time

14. 2018-08-03 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

Explanation; 
Cassation Appeal against the Judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk of 12 July 2018 in the Civil Case Based on the Statement of Claims of the Citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nikolas Cheropoulos against the Citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadyevna Trafimovich for the Return of the Children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. 

1. The actual circumstances of the case;

 

2. Violation of substantive law by the Court;

 

3. Violation of procedural law;

 

“Firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters of their residence, wishing to provide international protection of children against harmful effects of their illegal removal or retention and to establish procedures for their quick return to the place of their permanent residence, as well as to ensure protection of access right”. 
We hereby appeal:

1. To cancel the judgment of the Oktyabrsky District of the City of Minsk of 12 July 2018 in the civil case based on the statement of claims of the citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nikolas Cheropoulos against the citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadyevna Trafimovich on return of the children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 and to make a new decision satisfying the claims.

 

2. To bring the prosecutor into the proceedings.

 

3. To schedule a court hearing of this complaint not earlier than 27 August 2018. 

 

2018-08-03 EN CASSATION Appeal Submitted to Minsk City-Court against decision from 2018-07-12 regarding my Hague Claim

 

2018-08-03 RU CASSATION Appeal Submitted to Minsk City-Court against decision from 2018-07-12 regarding my Hague Claim 

15. 2018-09-10 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

Explanation; 
Cassation Appeal processed at Minsk City Court regarding the decision from District Court on The Hague Convention Decision 2018-07-12. Our Cassation Appeal was rejected! Observer from the Swedish Embassy was present together with my representative E.M. (Arzinger Law Firm).

2018-09-10 EN DECISION Minsk City Court to reject Appeal regarding decision on The Hague Convention Ruled 2018-07-12

 

2018-09-10 RU DECISION Minsk City Court to reject Appeal regarding decision on The Hague Convention Ruled 2018-07-12

 

2018-09-12 EN EMBASSY OBSERVER Report from Hearings 2018-09-10 Minsk City Court received 2018.09.28 Confidential

 

2018-09-12 SW EMBASSY OBSERVER Report from Hearings 2018-09-10 Minsk City Court received 2018.09.28 Confidential

 

Explanation;
 

Parallel with the Cassation Appeal in Minsk, final decision was ruled at Södertörns Tingsrätt regarding sole custody in my favor. This was a “Marathon” with many actors involved because my ex was hiding and the Swedish Court Authorities was not able to legally notify her earlier. This was achieved after one year by the County of Stockholm thru the CO of Belarus.

 

With initiative taken by me, we start to research together with Martha Poni (Greek Attorney), and finally, we forced the legal authorities in Belarus to handle over the notification report dated 2nd of August 2018 to the Swedish court authorities on the 5th of September 2018!

 

Worth to mention is that the notification report was dated 2nd of August 2018 but the court authorities in Belarus ignored to send it to their counterpart in Sweden!

 

Without Martha Poni, the Swedish Judge B.B., Arzinger Law Firm and the County of Stockholm, we would never get this notification report in our hands. If this would happen, then the court hearing on the 10th of September 2018 in Stockholm would have been postponed once again because of insufficient follow up of my case by the Attorney’s in Sweden!

 

I leave it to the Audience to conclude, why the report conducted by the Oktyabrsky District Court in Minsk, was not sent earlier to their counterpart in Sweden! 

2018-10-10 EN DECISION IN FORCE from Sweden RULED 2018-09-19

 

2018-10-10 RU DECISION IN FORCE from Sweden RULED 2018-09-19

 

2018-10-10 SW DECISION IN FORCE from Sweden RULED 2018-09-19

 

2018-10-12 EN REGARDING the SUMMONS of Correct Notification from Sweden to L.T.

 

2018-10-12 RU REGARDING the SUMMONS of Correct Notification from Sweden to L.T.

 

2018-10-12 SW REGARDING the SUMMONS of Correct Notification from Sweden to L.T.

16. 2018-09-21 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

Explanation; 
Decision ruled 2018-09-10 to reject our Cassation Appeal from Minsk City Court on The Hague Convention Decision ruled 2018-07-12 by the district Court. With Motivation dated 2018-09-21 on the rejection of our Cassation Appeal from Minsk City Court.
Present at the hearing was Observer from the Embassy of Sweden and my representative E.M. from Arzinger Law Firm. I could not participate because parallel final hearing was processed in Stockholm regarding Custody of my Children. Ms. Trafimovich was informed in advance and invited to participate by phone with official translator on place for her which the Swedish state paid for, but she refused!  
Summary of Motivation:

In refusing Nicolas Cheropoulos to satisfy the stated claims regarding the return of the children to their place of residence in the Kingdom of Sweden, the court reasonably took into account that in the territory of the Republic of Belarus the minor children of the parties, Anthie Anthoula Cheropoulou and Alexandra Cheropoulou are regarded exclusively as the citizens of the Republic of Belarus, which does not recognize the citizens of the Republic of Belarus as having the citizenship of a foreign state. From the moment of moving from Sweden, the children have been living in the territory of the Republic of Belarus for more than one year (15 months), they have fully integrated into the living environment, they attend preschool educational institution, various interest groups, school clubs, Sunday school, they have no problems with communication.

 

“In refusing to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff, the court reasonably took into account the plaintiff’s information about the arrest of the defendant in the event of her arrival in Sweden, and therefore made a well-founded conclusion that the return of the minor children, Anthie Anthoula Cheropoulou and Alexandra Cheropoulou, to Sweden and their staying in Sweden without their mother can cause psychological harm to the minor children and will not be in their best interests”. 

 

2018-09-21 EN Motivation to DECISION of Rejection Minsk City Court 2018.09.10 on The Hague Convention Ruled 2018-07-12

 

2018-09-21 RU Motivation to DECISION of Rejection Minsk City Court 2018.09.10 on The Hague Convention Ruled 2018-07-12

 

2018-09-12 EN EMBASSY OBSERVER Report from Hearings 2018-09-10 Minsk City Court received 2018.09.28

 

2018-09-12 RU EMBASSY OBSERVER Report from Hearings 2018-09-10 Minsk City Court received 2018.09.28 (send for translation)

 

2018-09-12 SW EMBASSY OBSERVER Report from Hearings 2018-09-10 Minsk City Court received 2018.09.28  

17. 2018-10-09 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

APPEAL in the exercise of Supervisory Powers against the judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court in Minsk of 12 July 2018 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Minsk City Court of 10 September 2018 in the case involving the lawsuit by the citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nikolas Cheropoulos against the citizen of the Republic of Belarus L. A. Trafimovich for the return of the children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. The response on the review of the supervisory appeal was given by S.K. Khmaruk on June 05, 2019, i.e. more than six months after it was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office of the City of Minsk for consideration. 

We consider the judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk of 12 July 2018 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Minsk City Court of 10 September 2018 illegal, unreasonable and subject to reversal due to the following; 

 

I. The actual circumstances of the case 
II. Violation of substantive and procedural law by the Court 
Explanation; 

The court delivered an illegal judgment to dismiss the lawsuit since the evidence obtained during the trial of the case indicated the existence of a complete set of grounds and facts for the return of the children under the application of Nicolas Cheropoulos in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. 

 

The court made a wrong decision that the prosecutor should not participate in such a process. Belarusian procedural law does not indeed mention this category of cases among those named in Article 83 of the Civil Procedure Code. But the courts should take into account that the disputes arising from the application for the return of the children under the Convention of 1980 are not mentioned in the civil procedural law at all, to begin forming law enforcement practice on consideration of such critical issues based on the decision that the prosecutor is not obliged to participate in such trials – such an approach does not meet the interests of the child by no means, and therefore cannot be considered legally acceptable. 

 

Supervisory appeal:

To announce a protest in the exercise of supervisory powers against the judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court in Minsk of 12 July 2018 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Minsk City Court of 10 September 2018 on the civil case involving the lawsuit by the citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nicolas Cheropoulos (NIKOLAS CHEROPOULOS) against the citizen of the Republic of Belarus L. A. Trafimovich for the return of the children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. 

 

Cases previously considered in Belarus on such claims were also heard with the mandatory participation of the prosecutor. It corresponds to the essence of the Convention as the signatory states have declared in the text of the document:

 

“The signatory states to this Convention; firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters of their custody, wishing to provide international protection of children against harmful effects of their illegal removal or retention and to establish procedures for their quick return to the place of their permanent residence, as well as to ensure protection of access right, have made a decision to enter into a Convention for this purpose”. 

2018-10-09 EN Supervisory Appeal Submitted to the decision dated 12.07.2018 & 10.09.2018

 

2018-10-09 RU Supervisory Appeal Submitted to the decision dated 12.07.2018 & 10.09.2018 

18. 2019-06-05 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

REJECTION Of Supervisory Appeal on Hague Case, from Public Prosecutor of our Hague Case Appeal submitted 2018-10-09. Please note, that decision to reject my Supervisory Appeal was made only after more then 6 months! This was obviously made in purpose so I will lose time despite the protest filled by my representative!  
Explanation of Rejection;

During the consideration of the case, it was established that L.A. Trafimovich holds the property rights to the three-room apartment located at the address: 64-24 Kizhevatova Str., Minsk, in which she lives with the minor children. 

 

According to the results of the psychological examination of the minors for the study of the child-parent relations of 06 June 2018, it is difficult for Alexandra to understand the fact of separation of the parents due to her age. 

 

Anthie’, Anthoula demonstrates emotional affection towards both the mother and the father. The relationship of the child with her mother is the closest. In the “family drawing” the father figure is absent. The figures of both parents and the relationship with them are positively colored in the representation of the girl. 

 

The court reasonably refused to return the minors in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980, as it was reliably established during the case consideration that there were no violations of the provisions of the Convention or international law.

 

Anthie’, Anthoula and Alexandra are considered to be solely citizens of the Republic of Belarus in the territory of the Republic of Belarus, which does not recognize the affiliation of their citizens to the citizenship of a foreign state. 

The return of the daughters to the territory of the Kingdom of Sweden without a mother can cause their psychological trauma and will not be in the interests of the children. 

 

The arguments of your appeal concerning the violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law during the consideration of the case are not grounded, as the court has given a proper assessment to all the evidence presented in the case, including that indicated in the supervisory appeal, therefore the procedural law was correctly applied. 

It took Mr. S.K. Khmaruk over 7 months to decide the rejection of my Supervisory Appeal! The same prosecutor who in his previous decision from 25 April 2018 No. 8/9-2018, to protest regarding denial of justice and illegalities, now are, with his arguments, in huge contrast and controversy in his decision from 05 June 2019 ref. No. 8/9-2018 to reject my Supervisory Appeal!

 

What happened Mr. S.K. Khmaruk? 

2019-05-20 EN Letter sent to Public Prosecutor by Elena M. requesting update on our Supervisory Appeal regarding Hague Case

 

2019-05-20 RU Letter sent to Public Prosecutor by Elena M. requesting update on our Supervisory Appeal regarding Hague Case (send for translation)

 

2019-06-05 EN Decision to Reject Supervisory Appeal from Publ. Prosec. of our Hague Case Appeal

 

2019-06-05 RU Decision to Reject Supervisory Appeal from Publ. Prosec. of our Hague Case Appeal

19. 2019-10-25 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

SUBMITTED SUPERVISORY APPEAL on Hague Case to the GENERAL PROSECUTOR of BELARUS Aleksandr Vladimirovich Koniuk.
Explanation; 

SUPERVISORY APPEAL against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated July 12, 2018 and the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of September 10, 2018 based on the statement of claim by the citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nikolas Cheropoulos against the citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich on the return of children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. 

 

The Defendant did not refute the evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s arguments, but the Court allowed the incorrect application of substantive law, and instead of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, the Court applied the citizenship rules in the Republic of Belarus. Thus, the fact of the habitual permanent residence of the children in the Kingdom of Sweden until they were removed to the Republic of Belarus was established during the hearing and was not refuted. 

 

Moreover, the fact that the children were removed without the consent of the father is confirmed by the evidence in the case file: testimonies from a kindergarten in Sweden, a photo of the girl’s baby stroller left at the airport (provided by the Swedish police for identification), testimonies of Mariya Kaberska aka Mariya Khatsanovska and Sophia Mindouri. 

The Deputy General Prosecutor indicated that Nikolas Cheropoulos knew about the need to leave Sweden to obtain a Belarussian passport for his youngest daughter and that both children and their mother had previously left their country of birth and permanent residence for Belarus. However, the case materials, including the records of the court hearings, refute these allegations. Moreover, the youngest daughter has never visited the Republic of Belarus before.

 

Moreover, on June 19, 2019, the House of Representatives adopted amendments to the legislation of the Republic of Belarus on the international abduction of children in the first reading. 

 

2019-10-25 EN SUBMITTED SUPERVISORY APPEAL on Hague Case to the  General Prosecutor of Belarus

 

2019-10-25 RU SUBMITTED SUPERVISORY APPEAL on Hague Case to the  General Prosecutor of Belarus

 

2019-10-25 EN SUBMITTED Appeal to Restore the Procedural Terms General Prosecutor of Belarus 

 

2019-10-25 RU SUBMITTED Appeal to Restore the Procedural Terms General Prosecutor of Belarus (send for translation)

20. 2019-11-14 Arzinger Law Firm (Lawyers in charge)

General Prosecutor Mr. Koniuk (ex-prosecutor)
REJECTION of SUPERVISORY APPEAL on Hague Case from General Prosecutor Mr. Koniuk dated 2019.11.01. The received rejection of my Appeal was expected and without any surprises. Thus, it was the first time since my litigation started in Belarus that I received a Justified Decision without the need for Mr. Koniuk to invent the wheel and deny me Justice like his colleagues did before him! Though, to say that Mr. Stuk specified a substantiated response, this is to exaggerate the competence of his associates! Mr. Koniuk shouldn’t have to think so much about the presentation of his motivation;

The General Prosecutor’s Office had previously considered the supervisory appeal against these court orders. The Deputy General Prosecutor refused to bring a supervisory protest, as specified in a substantiated response. In accordance with Article 436 of the Civil Procedure Code, supervisory appeals must be submitted within one year from the date of entry of the court order into force.

Supervisory appeals filed after the specified deadline shall not be subject to consideration. The deadline established by law for appealing a court decision that has entered into force has expired. This deadline is preclusive and cannot be restored. Subject to the foregoing, a repeated supervisory appeal cannot be considered on the merits and is returned. 

 

Finally, the Judicial Authorities of Belarus found a way to Vandalize the Law and legally deny my Children and me JUSTICE!

2019-11-14 EN REJECTION of SUPERVISORY APPEAL from Gen. Prosecutor Mr. Koniuk dated 2019.11.01

 

2019-11-14 RU REJECTION of SUPERVISORY APPEAL from Gen. Prosecutor Mr. Koniuk dated 2019.11.01   

21. 2019-11-29 N.Ch. (Applications Submitted by me)

To the Chairman of Minsk City Court Mr. Korshunovich
SUBMITTED:

Supervisory Appeal on Hague Case 2019-11-29 to the Chairman of Minsk City Court  Mr. Korshunovich against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated July 12, 2018 and the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of September 10, 2018 based on the statement of claim by the citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nikolas Cheropoulos against the citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich on the return of children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980.

 

I. The actual circumstances of the case 
II. Violation of substantive and procedural law by the Court  
SUBMITTED: 

Appeal for Reinstatement of Procedural Time Limits to the Chairman of Minsk City Court  Mr. Korshunovich. On July 12, 2018, the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk heard the civil case and ruled to refuse to satisfy my claims against the citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich on the return of the children Anthoula, Anthie’ Cheropoulou and Alexandra Cheropoulou in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of October 25, 1980. On September 10, 2018, the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court upheld the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk.

 

On October 09, 2018, the supervisory appeal was sent to the Prosecutor’s Office of the City of Minsk with a request to initiate a supervisory review against these court decisions and rule for their cancellation. The response to the review of the supervisory appeal was given only on June 05, 2019, that is, after more than six months from the date of its submission to the Prosecutor’s Office of the City of Minsk. The protest was denied.

2019-11-21 EN SUPERVISORY Appeal to the Chairman of MINSK CITY COURT Mr. Korshunovich

 

2019-11-21 RU SUPERVISORY Appeal to the Chairman of MINSK CITY COURT Mr. Korshunovich (send for translation)

 

2019-11-21 EN APPLICATION for Reinstatement of Procedural Time Limits

 

2019-11-21 RU APPLICATION for Reinstatement of Procedural Time Limits 

22. 2019-12-02 N.Ch. (Applications submitted by me)

To the Chairman of the Supreme Court Mr. Sukalo
SUBMITTED: 

Supervisory Appeal on Hague Case 2019-12-02 to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus Mr. Sukalo Valentin Olegovich against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated July 12, 2018 and the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of September 10, 2018 based on the statement of claim by the citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nikolas Cheropoulos against the citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich on the return of children in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980.

 

I. The actual circumstances of the case 
II. Violation of substantive and procedural law by the Court 
SUBMITTED: 

Appeal for Admission of Consideration 2019-12-02 to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus Mr. Sukalo Valentin Olegovich of my Hague Case to the Supervisory Authority of The Supreme Court. My initial decision to file the appeal with the prosecution officials was dictated by the fact that, despite the requests, the court did not consider the participation of the prosecutor necessary. Indeed, the current legislation of the Republic of Belarus does not require the participation of the prosecutor in considering cases of this category, however, the participation of the prosecutor in the draft amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure will be mandatory! 

 

On October 9, 2018, my supervisory appeal was sent to the prosecutor’s office of Minsk with a request to bring a protest in order to supervise these court decisions and determine whether they should be canceled. The answer to the review of the supervisory appeal was given only on 05.06.2019 – more than six months after the moment I applied to the prosecutor’s office of Minsk. The protest was denied. 

 

On July 15, 2019, based on the response received from the prosecutor’s office in Minsk, taking into account the presence of a foreign element – I am a citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden, the supervisory appeal was submitted to the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Belarus. 03.10.2019 the answer was received after more than 2.5 months. 

 

Nonetheless, I had to wait for the answer to my supervisory appeal from the Prosecutor’s Office of Minsk more than 6 months! For the answer from the General Prosecutor’s Office such term has been of 2.5 months. This has taken away a lot of precious time. At the same time as far as I am concerned the term for the supervisory appeal consideration is 1 month. Instead of even maximum permitted term of 2 months, I have been waiting for the answers for 9 (!). The Prosecutor’s Office has explained such extension of period with the long period within which the documents on the case have been transferred from the court to the Prosecutor’s Office.  Nevertheless, I consider that I have the right not only to the fair trial, but also to the real possibility to enjoy the right to appeal. 
My aim was to have a written opinion of the highest court of the Republic of Belarus. 

2019-12-02 EN SUPERVISORY Appeal to The Chairman of The Supreme Court Mr. Sukalo Valentin Olegovich

 

2019-12-02 RU SUPERVISORY Appeal to The Chairman of The Supreme Court Mr. Sukalo Valentin Olegovich (send for transl.)

 

2019-12-02 RU&EN APPEAL for ADMISSION of Consideration of my Hague Case to the Supervisory Authority of The Supreme Court 

     

23. 2019-12-06 N.Ch. (Appeal submitted by me 2019.12.02)

REJECTION of Hague Case Appeal on Supervision and to Restore the Procedural Time Limits Submitted 2019-11-29 to the Chairman of Minsk City Court Mr. Korshunovich
Explanation;

Your appeal is returned without consideration on the basis of Clause 2, Article 438 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter – the Civil Procedure Code).

 

In accordance with the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated July 12, 2018, you were denied the satisfaction of the claims against L.A. Trafimovich on the return of the children in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of October 25, 1980.

 

The court decision entered into force on September 10, 2018.

 

In accordance with Part 4, Article 436 of the Civil Procedure Code, a supervisory appeal may be filed within one year from the date of entry of the court order into force.
Since the supervisory appeal has been filed by you after the deadline established by Part 4, Article 436 of the Civil Procedure Code, the application for the reinstatement of the time limits for filing the supervisory appeal is dismissed, the appeal cannot be accepted for consideration.

First Deputy Chairman                  /signed/                       V.V. Grigorovich

 

2019-12-06 EN REJECTION of APPEAL on SUPERVISION and to Restore Procedural Time Limits

 

2019-12-06 RU REJECTION of APPEAL on SUPERVISION and to Restore Procedural Time Limits 

24. 2020-01-13 N.Ch. (Appeal submitted by me)

REJECTION of Hague Case Appeal to the Chairman of The Supreme Court Mr. Sukalo Submitted 2019.12.02

I receive the decision, dated 2020-01-13 with the rejection of my appeal as expected, on the 22 of January 2020. It was a leery decision with a pitiful content. The rejections of previous Appeals to other instances was only pitiful! 

 

Explanation; 

Beneath follows excerpts of the rejection and the  arguments to dismiss my Appeal  on the basis of the following;

 

According to Article 12 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (concluded in The Hague on October 25, 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation (Article 13 of the Convention).

On April 18, 2017 L.A. Trafimovich flew with the children to Belarus.

 

After returning to the Republic of Belarus, your daughters, together with their mother, were registered and permanently reside in a comfortable three-room apartment No. 24 in building No. 64 at Kizhevatova Street in Minsk.

 

In the materials of the case it is established that the children attend kindergarten No. 480 in Minsk, are observed in the healthcare institution “City Children’s Outpatient Clinic No. 13”.

 

Anthie’, Anthoula is a member of the aesthetic team gymnastics sports group.

 

Your daughters are characterized as sociable, friendly, inquisitive children who easily come into contact with adults and children. Their good level of physical and intellectual development and a penchant for creative activity are especially noted.
According to the results of a psycho-diagnostic examination of the children, it was found that your daughters are emotionally attached to both parents. At the same time, while they experience the need to communicate with you, the girls have a closer and trusting relationship with their mother, who takes care of them, is engaged in their upbringing and provides parental care.

The court found that L.A. Trafimovich properly fulfills parental responsibilities, has created the appropriate conditions for the development and education of the children in the Republic of Belarus.

 

These circumstances were confirmed in court by a representative of the competent guardianship authority.

Considering the children’s young age, their special affection for the mother, who has been caring for them since birth and has been properly fulfilling parental responsibilities, the court reasonably agreed with the opinion of the guardianship authority that separation of the children from their mother and return to their country of permanent residence are not in their best interests and can cause them psychological damage.

 

In such circumstances, the court has rightfully refused to satisfy your claims.

Court decisions in the case were made in accordance with the actual circumstances and requirements of the law. The court did not allow violations of procedural rules entailing the abolition of court decisions by way of supervision.

 

For the stated reasons, it was refused to bring the protest to reverse the court decisions.
Please note that this decision in no way excludes the possibility of your participation in raising your daughters, including the establishment by the court of the procedure for your communication with the children.

2020-01-13 EN HAGUE CASE DECISION Rejection on Submitted APPEAL to the Supreme Court Received 2020.01.22

 

2020-01-13 RU HAGUE CASE DECISION Rejection on Submitted APPEAL to the Supreme Court Received 2020.01.22      

No posts found
en_USEN