The Plaintiff (wife) filed the divorce action against the Defendant (husband).
The Defendant does not agree with the divorce action. The allegations contained in the divorce action are false, and the divorce action filed in the Russian Federation has no grounds and violates Article 47 Part 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which guarantees the right for a case to be considered in the court and by the judge under the jurisdiction assigned by law.
1. The Plaintiff represents to the magistrate as a Russian citizen residing in Russia, indicating that “the Defendant currently resides and works permanently in USA, his address in USA is unknown”. In fact, both spouses are residents and citizens of USA; they came to Russia on vacation for the short period of time. The Plaintiff has ticket back to home to USA for March 1, 2020, which is confirmed by tickets, purchased in advance from New York to Moscow and back to New York. The address of the Defendant is well known to the Plaintiff.
2. Five days before traveling to Russia, the Plaintiff passed the driving license exam and indicated her actual address of residence in the United States.
3. The Plaintiff purchased a vehicle insurance policy in the United States as well.
4. From the attached correspondence between the Parties, it is seen that the Plaintiff has dual citizenship and permanently resides in New York, and in her following messages she justifies to the Defendant the need to travel to Russia in order to change the necessary documents after marriage and the surname change.
5. In the correspondence, the Parties discussed the prospects of buying a house in Long Island and obtaining a mortgage in USA, and not in Russia.
6. The Plaintiff’s page on LinkedIn social network now indicates that she lives and works in New York. In the above correspondence with the Plaintiff, she admitted that she came to USA as a 15 years old teenager and has been living in this country by this day.
7. Russia and United States have not signed a treaty on legal assistance in civil and family matters. The only applicable treaty is the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, dated on November 15, 1965, but this treaty does not provide for the mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions made by the competent courts of both countries. Consequently, a divorce order between two citizens of USA, issued in Russia during their vacation, will never be recognized and enforced in the USA; therefore, the consideration of the present case by a Russian court is devoid of practical meaning.
8. In accordance with Article 47 Part 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, no one may be deprived of the right for hearing of the case in the court and by the judge related to the jurisdiction assigned by law. Since the place of permanent residence of both Parties is the USA, the present case shall be considered by the competent court at the place of permanent residence of the Parties.
In accordance with Article 220 of the Russian Civil Procedural Code, the court supposed to dismiss the civil action in the event that there are grounds provided for by Article 134 Part 1 Clause 1 of the Russian Civil Procedural Code, that is, in the case when the civil action is not subject to consideration in the Russian courts.
Under such circumstances, in order to comply with Article 47 Part 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the divorce action is subject to dismissal.