Published on 9 October 2023
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 18363/18
Akhtem Zeytullayovych CHYYGOZ against Russia
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 2 September 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the latter asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. The applicants are Crimean Tatars and their complaints concern, among other things, their allegedly unlawful transfer from Crimea to the detention facilities in the Russian Federation either pending trial or after their convictions to serve their sentences. In this respect the applicants in all applications refer, inter alia, to Article 3 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention stating that they, being Ukrainian nationals, were expelled from the territory of their State. Moreover, referring to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 thereto, the applicants in all applications except for applications nos. 18363/18, 64404/19 and 6806/20, allege that they were treated as Russian nationals notwithstanding the fact that they were in fact Ukrainian nationals on “the occupied territory”, and they allege that this represented a discriminatory treatment.
The applicants in applications nos. 18363/18, 40303/21, 40933/21 and 50597/21 also complain, inter alia, under Article 5 of the Convention that their detentions, either pending trial (in applications nos. 40303/21, 40933/21 and 50597/21) or after conviction (in the remaining application), were unlawful given that they had been ordered according to the procedure prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation and by Russian courts in Crimea which, according to them, were not competent courts. Furthermore, the applicants in applications nos. 40303/21, 40933/21 and 50597/21 also complain about the excessive length of their detention.
The applicants in applications nos. 18363/18 and 6806/20, also allege a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, stating that the Russian courts in Crimea examining their cases were not independent and impartial tribunals established by law.
Furthermore, the applicants in applications nos. 18363/18, 6806/20 and 30202/20 allege a violation of Article 7 of the Convention. In particular, the applicant in application no. 18363/18 complains that he was convicted under Russian law for a crime allegedly committed before Russia asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea. As regards applications nos. 6806/20 and 30202/20, the applicants complain they were charged under Russian law with belonging to an illegal armed group operating on the territory of a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that this organisation was not prohibited in Ukraine.
Lastly, the applicant in application no. 18363/18 alleges a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, he states that after he was pardoned and subsequently transferred from Crimea to mainland Ukraine as part of a prisoner exchange, he is unable to return to Crimea for fear of being prosecuted. This inability, according to the applicant, has led to the loss of his family and personal contacts in Crimea.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 of the Convention?
2. In applications nos. 18363/18, 40303/21, 40933/21 and 50597/21, were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
To that end, did the decisions taken by the courts in these applicants’ cases comply with the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 150, 23 February 2016)?
3. In application no. 18363/18, does the applicant’s deprivation of liberty following his conviction comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention?
4. Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in applications nos. 40303/21, 40933/21 and 50597/21 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
5. Having regard to the allegations made by the applicants in applications nos. 18363/18 and 6806/20, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
6. Did the relevant domestic provisions on the basis of which the applicants in applications nos. 18363/18, 6806/20 and 30202/20 were convicted fulfil the qualitative requirements under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 99, 17 September 2009)?
7. As regards application no. 18363/18, has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s inability to return to Crimea?
8. Were the applicants, Ukrainian nationals, expelled from the territory of their State in breach of Article 3 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?
9. Have the applicants, who raise complaints under this provision, suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights under Article 3 § 1 of Protocol No. 4, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?
10. Finally, did the alleged acts which gave rise to the applicants’ complaints have a basis in “law” within the meaning of the Convention provisions relied on by them?
APPENDIX
List of cases
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
1.
18363/18
Chyygoz v. Russia
10/03/2018
Akhtem Zeytullayovych CHYYGOZ
1964
Ukrainian
Oleksandr Vadymovych ZARUTSKYY
2.
64404/19
Suleymanov v. Russia
18/11/2019
Renat
Rustemovich SULEYMANOV
1969
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY
3.
6806/20
Mamutov v. Russia
23/01/2020
Aydyn
Rustemovich MAMUTOV
1978
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY
4.
30202/20
Gafarov v. Russia
19/06/2020
Dilyaver
Alimovich
GAFAROV
1996
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY
5.
40303/21
Adilov v. Russia
02/08/2021
Bilyal Abdurakhmanovych ADILOV
1970
Ukrainian
Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
6.
40933/21
Ametov v. Russia
02/08/2021
Enver Esfyndiyarovych AMETOV
1975
Ukrainian
Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
7.
50597/21
Suleymanov v. Russia
30/07/2021
Ruslan
Serverovych SULEYMANOV
1983
Ukrainian
Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
8.
51918/21
Bektemirov v. Russia
06/10/2021
Vadim
Zaidinovich BEKTEMIROV
1981
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY
9.
61565/21
Khayredinov v. Russia
06/12/2021
Seyran
Nuriyevich KHAYREDINOV
1986
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY
10.
61582/21
Sufyanov v. Russia
06/12/2021
Alim
Nuritdinovich SUFYANOV
1990
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY
11.
1820/22
Ibragimov v. Russia
28/12/2021
Ernest
Ilyasovich IBRAGIMOV
1981
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY
12.
1822/22
Fedorov v. Russia
28/12/2021
Oleg
Vladimirovich FEDOROV
1970
Ukrainian
Roman
Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY