GORYUNOV v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

Published on 26 February 2024

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 27776/16
Nikolay Borisovich GORYUNOV against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 7 February 2024

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. They concern the allegedly unlawful criminal conviction and detention of the applicants, most of whom are serving their sentences in the territory of Russia.

The background to the complaints raised by the applicants concerns the applicability of Russian legislation in Crimea and jurisdiction of the Russian courts in Crimea to examine the criminal cases against them. Some of the applicants were detained and/or convicted by Ukrainian courts in Crimea, and, after 18 March 2014, Russian courts continued and/or reviewed the criminal proceedings at various stages under Russian legislation and adopted judgments. Some applicants were convicted only by Russian courts, but in respect of alleged offences that had taken place before 2014 (application nos. 63621/16, 33407/17).

In their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants in application nos. 27776/16, 52795/16, 70212/16, and 33407/17 allege that the courts in Crimea examining their cases were not independent and impartial tribunals established by law and that those courts applied substantive and procedural laws of Russia, in violation of Ukrainian law and international law. In addition, the applicants in application nos. 27776/16, 63621/16, and 70212/16 argue under Article 5 § 1(a) that their detention was unlawful.

Furthermore, under Article 7 of the Convention the applicants in application nos. 27776/16, 63621/16, 70212/16 argue that Russian law was applied retroactively in their cases. Consequently, the applicant in application no. 63621/16 alleges that a heavier penalty was imposed on him. Similarly, in application no. 52795/16 the applicant argues that he was convicted twice for the same offence in violation of Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the Convention.

In addition, the applicants in application nos. 52795/16, 63621/16 and 70212/16, who are Ukrainian nationals, complain under Article 3 of Protocol 4 to the Convention and allege that they were expelled to Russia to serve their sentences in penitentiary institutions in various regions of Russia.

Lastly, in application no. 27776/16 the applicant argues, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, that the imposition of Russian nationality on him prevented him from applying for a transfer to Ukraine, and that his serving his prison sentence more than 1500 km away from his home, in the absence of adequate family visits, constituted an interference with his home and family life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 of the Convention?

2.  Were the applicants in applications nos. 27776/16, 63621/16 and 70212/16 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? To that end, did the decisions taken by the courts in the applicants’ cases comply with the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention provisions relied on by the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 150, 23 February 2016)?

3.  Did the applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 63621/16, who did not raise this complaint, 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?

4.  Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicants in application nos. 27776/16, 63621/16 and 70212/16 were convicted fulfil the qualitative requirements which have been set out in the Court’s case-law under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 99, 17 September 2009)?

5.  Has the applicant in application no. 52795/16, been convicted twice for the same offence, in breach of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?

6.  As regards application no. 27776/16, was the applicant’s transfer to the Russian detention facilities and the imposition on him of Russian nationality compatible with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention?

7.  In respect of applications nos. 52795/16, 63621/16 and 70212/16, were the applicants, Ukrainian nationals, expelled from the territory of their State, in breach of Article 3 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?

8.  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 applications: