Purpose
This document provides an overview of the various court decisions which show that Tatiana was married to Farkhad between 1993 and 2015, and following a divorce petition in the English High Court was granted the decree absolute on 15 December 2016 (as that’s the final pronouncement of the divorce).
No other divorce exists between Tatiana Akhmedova and Farkhad Akhmedov.
Overview
The decision of the UK Courts to award Tatiana Akhmedov a substantial financial sum in 2016, and the validity of that ruling both in the UK and overseas, has been challenged by FA, or his representatives, on several occasions through legal proceedings and in the media.
The foundation of this challenge relies on Farkhad Akhmedov’s erroneous claim that a divorce had already been granted to him and Tatiana in Moscow on 18th August 2000.
Court Decisions
As of July 2020, the following courts have rejected (or declined to uphold the validity of) the existence of any divorce between Mr Farkhad Akhmedov and Ms Tatiana Akhmedova that predates the 2016 divorce proceedings in the UK High Court:
- UK High Court, Justice Haddon-Cave, 2016
- Moscow District Court, Chairing Judge N.M. Vyugova, and Judges M.L. Salnikova and V.K.
Dubinskaya, July 2018 - Moscow City Court, Presiding Judge T.V. Solenova, 16 October 2018
Summary of Court Decisions
UK High Court, Justice Haddon-Cave
15 December 2016
At Paragraph 40 of AAZ v BBZ, [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam)
“[Farkhad] applied to strike out [Tatiana’s] petition on the grounds that the marriage had already been dissolved by a Russian decree granted in the Moscow court on 18th August 2000. [Mr Akhmedov] produced ‘official’ Russian court documents to this effect. However, a search by [Ms Akhmedova’s] lawyers of the official records in the Moscow court revealed that no such divorce proceedings existed. This was recently confirmed for these proceedings in a Civil Evidence Act notice statement of a Moscow lawyer, served by [Tatiana] in support of her financial claim. This statement was not challenged by [Farkhad] leading counsel at the PTR on 25th October 2016. The inference to be drawn, therefore, is that the 2000 Moscow divorce documents relied upon by [Farkhad] were, at all material times, forged.”
Moscow District Court
04 July 2018
“To determine the issue of restoration of the proceedings the court has reviewed evidence submitted by the applicant and has come to conclusion that the fact that civil proceedings were issued upon Farkhad’s divorce application against Tatiana has not been proved, nor has been proved the fact that the
Zyuzinsky District Court of Moscow made an order on the merits on 18 August 2000. As documents collected are insufficient for accurate restoration of the court order the court finds that the restoration proceedings must be dismissed because the applicant failed to submit sufficient and true details for accurate
restoration of the court order relating to the lost proceedings.This court did not find any circumstances stated in Article 317(2) of the Russian Civil Procedure Code that may serve as grounds for restoration of the lost proceedings.”
Moscow City Court, Presiding Judge T.V. Solenova
16 October 2018
“A photocopy was submitted of an excerpt from the judgment of the Zyuzinskiy InterMunicipal Court of the City of Moscow from August 2000 of the dissolution of the marriage between Akhmedov F.T.o. and Akhmedova Т.М. The excerpt from the judgment shows that the photocopy was made from a copy that had no proper certification of it being a true copy of the document.”
“As seen from the case file, the applicant failed to provide sufficient and credible data allowing accurate restoration of the judicial resolution issued in connection with the lost judicial proceedings.”
Since the Order of the Zyuzinsky Court dated 4 July 2018, Farkhad has brought at least four cassation appeals in Russia seeking to overturn the order. Each has been unsuccessful.
On 16 September 2019, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation notified Farkhad that under Chapter 41 of the relevant Civil Procedure Code there was no possibility of further appeals in this matter.